Headwaters Fund: Healthy or hijacked?

John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 03/21/2007 04:26:58 AM PDT

Click photo to enlarge«123»
On Feb. 27, 1999, the Times-Standard’s top headline shouted, “No Deal.”

The Pacific Lumber Co. had rejected the incredibly controversial $480 million deal to sell Headwaters Forest and other groves to the state and federal government and agree to a series of restrictions on its logging. “PL workers relieved,” was another headline.

But on March 1, the news was different. “Sold: Headwaters.”

The agreement set in motion a chain of events that still rattles today, and has been particularly hard on Palco workers. There were nearly 1,400 of them at the time; today, even including Arcata’s Britt Lumber Co., there are only about 550. They were good jobs, paying much more than the average wage in Humboldt County.

As part of the agreement, the state and federal governments recognized the economic blow the county would take. The federal government came up with a $10 million direct payment to the county. Former state Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin lobbied the California Legislature for $20 million. What came through was $12 million.

On March 17, Strom-Martin and then-Gov. Gray Davis posed for a photo on the Humboldt County Courthouse steps, presenting a giant check for $12 million. On the memo line it read: “For jobs and job retraining for displaced workers.”

Over the course of years, the money was the backbone of what became the Headwaters Fund. Through lengthy public meetings, the purpose of
the fund was carved. What it became didn’t have much to do with jobs, or job retraining, for displaced Palco workers. In 2002, the Headwaters Fund charter was approved.

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_5486081

Time for a fishermen-owned and operated cold storage facility

Time for a fishermen-owned and operated cold storage facility  

__ http://www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_10554016 Time for a fishermen-owned and operated cold storage facility Pete Nichols/My Word/For the Times-Standard  09/25/2008 The most recent blow to the Humboldt Bay fishing industry — the closure of the dilapidated Eureka Ice Company owned by Hunter Enterprises — is yet another reason to question the powers charged with implementing the future vision for Humboldt Bay. In 2005, Humboldt County Environmental Health informed Eureka Ice of issues related to the safety of the operation, stating that failure to address these problems would pose a significant risk to public health and the environment. No action was taken at that time by Eureka Ice to remedy these serious issues. In January of this year, the county laid out a plan for Eureka Ice to come into compliance and to avoid, as noted by an EPA official, “… a threat to the surrounding community” from the release of anhydrous ammonia gas into the Old Town area. The response from Eureka Ice was a five-year plan that failed to address any of the issues raised by the county or the EPA. Now, due to the blatant negligence of Hunter Enterprises, led by Dennis Hunter — president of the Humboldt Bay Harbor District — the community, and the fishing community in particular, are left to fend for themselves for cold storage and a steady supply of ice to support their already economically-challenged fishery. How could a representative of the governing body charged with maintaining the health and viability of the commercial fishery here around Humboldt Bay be so negligent in managing the most basic of his duties and responsibilities as a business owner, employer, and public official? Worse yet, with crab season on the horizon, Mr. Hunter has offered no solution to the problem. One would think that he would be working day and night to ensure, and fund, a contingency plan to be enacted until a more permanent solution is put in place. To date, we have heard nothing beyond that another former Hunter Enterprises decrepit fishing vessel has sunk at the dock, spilling diesel and its associated toxic stew into Humboldt Bay, and that Hunter Enterprises has dodged the massive fines that could/should have been his fate. So, once again, the onus falls upon the fishermen to seek a solution. Many local fishing representatives have approached the city of Eureka to act as the savior for this impending crisis. While the city may be well intentioned, I believe that their efforts will fall short of meeting the needs of the fishing community over the long-term. It is time for the fishing community (the Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing Association, in particular) to follow the lead of many of their colleagues throughout the Pacific Northwest to pursue operating and maintaining a cold storage facility — for the fishing industry, by the fishing industry. There are many successful examples of cooperative cold storage and ice facilities from Seattle to Sitka, and there is no reason why our local fishing leaders should not take this opportunity to free themselves from the reliance on third parties to support and market their product. Creating and maintaining their own facilities will empower the fishing industry, create a sense of ownership and pride surrounding their product, and produce some of those ever-illusive jobs that the Harbor District keeps promising to deliver. In many a crisis lays opportunity, and I believe this is one opportunity that the fishing community should seize upon. There are existing models to bring cooperative cold storage to ailing fishing communities. Most of these ventures are not so fortunate as to have institutions in place that could provide financial support to 1) provide immediate relief for the current crisis; and 2) secure funds to implement the long-term vision of a modern, fishermen-run community cold-storage facility. The Headwaters Fund was designed, and is uniquely situated, to accomplish both of these tasks. In the wake of funding the boondoggle of the Redwood Marine Terminal feasibility study and business plan, one would think that they would see the development of a cooperative cold storage facility as both a refreshing and realistic opportunity to fulfill the Headwaters Fund’s mission. The Humboldt Bay community is best served by maintaining and supporting a strong fishing fleet. Not only is it our heritage, but it is one of the best suited industries for this region. Commercial fishermen are famously independent and self-reliant, and once again it has fallen to them to control their own fate. This may be a blessing in disguise, since the last place their fate should lay is in the hands of the Humboldt Bay Harbor District. Pete Nichols is the executive director of Humboldt Baykeeper and the Pacific Northwest representative to the board of directors of the International Waterkeeper Alliance. He resides in Eureka. — To subscribe to this list, go to: http://www.ourhumboldt.org/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/list/progressive/

Headwaters Fund Public Input

http://co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/gp/minutes/trinidad.doc

Headwaters Fund Public Input

 

North County Meeting, September 12, 2000

 

 

 

Environment total dots: 83

 

 

• Watershed associations and land trusts should have a say in decision-making on an on-going basis (4)
• improvements to non-motorized trail system (6)
• establish land trusts and provide endowments for ag & conservation easements (15)
• need incentives for small non-industrial timber owners to use uneven age management
• provide economic incentives for industrial and non-industrial old growth forests to preserve old growth (8)
• purchase and preserve local native ecosystems as neighborhood parks & open spaces connected by foot trails and bicycle paths (11)
• should be used for comprehensive watershed restoration program, based on history of Headwaters issue; honor those that fought for Headwaters; need program for assessment, restoration and maintenance for long-term health of watershed (30)
• assistance for Redwood Creek Nat’l Watershed Center (8)
• livestock waste – loan funding/financial support for better treatment (1)

Economy total dots: 27

 

 

• develop venture capital investment fund; local businesses have little access to venture capital (12)
• tourist attracting facilities to bring people and money into the community
• promote alternative technology, e.g. electric vehicles, wind, solar, venture capital linkages. Why? Money into community, air quality, less dependent on foreign oil resources (4)
• direct economic investment: construction of marine terminal facilities, rail tie-in, ancillary highway improvements to diversify economy (8)
• job development needs to address wage gaps (2)
• promote women & minority owned businesses (1)
• dairy waste assistance program
• brownfield reuse assistance program

• façade improvement program for farmers; why, aesthetic value of landscape and links to tourism

Community total dots: 20

 

 

• Fluoridate community water supply (1)
• Develop community centers and facilities to serve as focal point for community and attract visitors (3)
• Preserve rural environments/communities (3)
• Public trails are disappearing from communities; encourage trail system development (4)
• Watershed based management will help strengthen communities
• billboard removal program in community; phase out and buy out
• public transportation (buses), railroad and other innovative ideas (9)

People total dots: 11

 

 

• drug treatment programs; why? Magnifies fund; $4 for$1 paid (2)
• child abuse prevention programs (3)
• provide outside educational programs for children, i.e. Discovery Museum. Currently there are limited opportunities (6)

Government total dots: 7

 

 

• loans and grants to property owners
• would county government sponsor Technology Task Force?
• Complete planning and environmental permitting necessary for grant funding, e.g. non-motorized trails (1)
• better planning and permitting
• update community plans, not just Framework Plan, especially Trinidad Plan, 20 years old (4)
• MOU of 5 government agencies/local districts for securing funds should be observed
• Administrative costs should not exceed 5% of funds (2)

Other total dots: 6

 

 

• more $ to improve public transit systems and bike and walking trails
• use $ to leverage other $ (6)
• share investment decision-making with all NGO’s
• develop criteria and concepts; invest in base industries; consider spending principal – $6 – 8 million on marine terminal and rail & highway tie-ins, $4-5 million on watershed restoration
• don’t tie hand to spending only interest
• study appropriateness of $200,000/yr. offset payments

 

 

General Plan Update Input

North County Meeting, 9/13/00

Other total dots: 30

 

 

• mechanisms needed to support ordinances
• public participation and involvement in implementation of Plan (e.g. land use decisions)
• Need assessment districts to fund implementation (4)
• Write implementing ordinances at the same time General Plan policies are written (2)
• Use of metrics to guide plan development and implementation
• do planning on a watershed basis (18)
• additional plan element for alternative technologies
• identify funding sources for implementation, i.e. check feasibility (6)

Conservation & Open Space total dots: 26

 

 

• promote PUD’s, open space, parks & trails required as part of new development (1)
• local forest practice rules / Forest Practice Act, to encourage non-industrial uneven age management (7)
• protecting local water supplies – cities (4)
• agricultural and timber lands preservation
• conservation easement program to address conversion of ag land, working forests, and sprawl (6)
• air quality: wood burning stoves, cars, etc (1)
• alternative technology to reduce reliance on conventional energy resources, i.e. clean fuel buses, trucks, autos
• address water quality impacts of livestock waste
• preservation of local native wildlife and vegetation (3)
• grading ordinance
• Protect organic farming community; reduce upstream impacts, i.e. Trinity County’s zero tolerance ordinance for water quality (4)

Land Use total dots: 18

 

 

• Promote mixed use development that considers land use, transportation, sustainable community principles; provide incentives for pedestrian friendly design (4)
• Encourage historical densities – small communities that protect resource lands (6)
• Quantify water diversions and impacts on creeks (3)
• Urban growth boundaries; voter initiative, infill (1)
• Brownfields
• TPZ protection policies
• Sales tax revenue distribution – jurisdictional competition shouldn’t drive land use decisions (4)

 

Economics total dots: 17

 

 

• Restoration of viable fisheries industry (6)
• Encourage light manufacturing & tourism (1)
• Sustainable development / self reliance w/o becoming “global colony” (5)
• Management of timber resources for future production of “clean heart” redwood (3)
• Utilize Sierra Business Council Wealth Index; look at different kinds of capital, social, natural, etc. (2)

Transportation total dots: 14

 

 

• Encourage alternative modes (8)
• Community trails (2)
• Address parking needs and how it will be provided; parking encourages single occupancy vehicle use
• Rural transit needs must be addressed (4)
• McKinleyville should develop its own bus system; communities provide feeders to main system
• support public transit
• new trails in existing communities

Coastal Policies total dots: 10

 

 

• coastal ecosystem / tidal wetland restoration (2)
• re-examine zoning in light of rarity of coastal forests, e.g. Samoa (4)
• preservation of dune land form (4)

Community Design total dots: 6

 

 

• PUD’s and trails dedication (3)
• Maintain rural lifestyle and quality of life
• Infilling; but what happens when we are “filled in”? “Garden Communities”
• Require community centers, community designs to be pedestrian friendly (2)
• Controls on lighting; light pollution (1)

Health & Safety total dots: 6

 

 

• protect community water supplies
• landslides and floods associated with forest practices; consider possible update of FSR (3)
• road standards that take into consideration of traffic calming features
• preventive medicine, e.g. immunizations, fluoridation
• consider solid waste management, set targets for waste reduction
• Master Fire Protection Plan that integrates private and public lands (3)

Housing total dots: 4

 

 

• remove category 4 road requirement for second units to keep costs down (2)
• affordable housing while still maintaining quality of life (2)
• demographic changes
• development of nomadic shelter and campground

Noise total dots: 2

 

 

• Need barking dog ordinance (1)
• Need gunfire ordinance (1)
• Noise impacts of leaf blowers

Parks & Recreation total dots: 2

 

 

• Need for trails and parks in communities as they develop and grow (2)
• Re-open Mad River Slough and Dunes Park
• Poop ordinance

Public Services total dots: 0

 

 

• Master Plan for county road system

• Require dedication of right-of-ways for non-motorized systems for larger development

MANAGEMENT OF THE HEADWATERS FUND

https://co.humboldt.ca.us/countycode/T2-D15.pdf

TITLE II – ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION 15
MANAGEMENT OF THE HEADWATERS FUND
Chapter 1 – Headwaters Fund Charter
§ 2151-1. Name and Purpose.
§ 2151-2. Fund Structure and Activities
§ 2151-3. Control and Oversight.
§ 2151-4. Program Rules.
§ 2151-5. Revisions and Amendments.
136
TITLE II – ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION 15
MANAGEMENT OF THE HEADWATERS FUND
CHAPTER 1
HEADWATERS FUND CHARTER
2151-1. NAME AND PURPOSE.
a) Name: The Headwaters Fund (HWF) (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) Purpose
i) To use the values, principles and strategies of the County’s
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, currently known as
Prosperity! The North Coast Strategy to:
a) Support the growth of base industry clusters and increase
the number of sustainable jobs that pay near or above the
median income; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) Enhance the quality of life through social and
environmental projects that promote healthy communities and
protect and enhance the natural environment. (Ord. No. 2289,
§ 1, 12/17/2002)
ii) To manage the HWF to:
a) Attract and leverage additional capital and grants in the
local economy; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) Keep the funds working in the community in perpetuity (Ord.
No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
c) Reflect community priorities and create maximum public
benefit over the long-term; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
d) Make the decision process objective, non-political and easy
for the public to participate in and understand; (Ord. No.
2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
e) Manage the funds efficiently and cost effectively; (Ord. No.
2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
f) Track and publicize the economic, social and environmental
gains. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
c) The management objective is to maximize the amount of money working
within the community providing desired benefits while preserving the
Headwaters Fund principal. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
2151-2. FUND STRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES.
a) Investments in the community will be made in three categories:
i) Revolving Loan Fund
a) Investments in businesses and non-profit organizations will
be made through the Revolving Loan Fund administered by
qualified financial institutions working under Board of
Supervisor approved contracts. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) Potential financing investments include debt, near-equity,
and equity financing to businesses and non-profit
organizations. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
c) Financing will provide capital to a wide range of
businesses to fill gaps in the market for available
financing, while still maintaining good banking practices.
(Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
137
§ 2151-2
ii) Community Investment Fund
a) The Community Investment Fund is a grant and loan program
intended for community endowments, revolving loan programs
and infrastructure projects that will result in permanent,
tangible benefits to the community. Eligible endowments and
revolving loan fund projects must demonstrate the ability
to operate sustainable programs with the funds provided
from the Community Investment Fund. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
b) The Fund is administered by the Headwaters Fund Board, with
the Board of Supervisors having final authority. (Ord. No.
2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
c) Government jurisdictions and non-profit organizations are
eligible for funds. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
d) Endowments and revolving loan fund projects must obtain a
minimum of 50% of the funding required from other sources.
Infrastructure projects must obtain a minimum of 75% of
outside funding and demonstrate the value of the project to
the growth of base industry clusters. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
iii) Grant Fund
a) The Grant Fund provides grants for community projects. Nonprofit
organizations and government jurisdictions are
eligible to apply for funding. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) The Grant Fund is administered by the Headwaters Fund
Board, with the Board of Supervisors having final
authority. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
c) Government jurisdictions and non-profit organizations are
eligible to apply for funds. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) Headwaters Liquidity Fund
i) The Humboldt County Treasurer’s Investment Pool acts as bank for
the funds that are not committed to financing investments or
grants in the Revolving Loan Fund, Community Investment Fund, and
Grant Fund. Funds in this “Headwaters Liquidity Fund” are
invested by the Treasurer/Tax Collector for safety, liquidity,
and yield. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
c) Distinction between Headwaters Funds and County Funds
i) Timber Yield Tax Payments: As stipulated by the Board of
Supervisors, a one-time lump sum of $4,013,243 will be deducted
from the Headwaters Fund and deposited in a separate
Treasurer/Tax Collector administered interest bearing trust
account entitled “Headwaters Sale Timber Yield Tax Loss.” This
lump sum is based on an estimate of the reduction of Timber Yield
Tax Payments to the County General Fund resulting from the sale
and preservation of the Headwaters Forest. The lump sum equates
to an annual series of payments in the amount of $308,711 per
year for a 13 year period. These funds are unrestricted and may
be used for general purpose County expenditures at the discretion
of the Board of Supervisors. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
138
§ 2151-2
ii) County Economic Development Division Payments: As stipulated by
the Board of Supervisors, a one-time lump sum of $1,800,000 will
be deducted from the Headwaters Fund and deposited in a separate
Treasurer/Tax Collector administered interest bearing trust
account entitled “Headwaters Sale Economic Division
Administrative Fund.” This lump sum is equivalent to an estimate
of the annual administrative costs required by the County’s
economic development program. The lump sum equates to an annual
series of payments in the amount of $90,000 per year for a 20
year period. These funds are restricted to the County’s economic
development program. The Board of Supervisors approves
expenditures from this fund through standard County budgeting
procedures. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
iii) Other than the two preceding exceptions, Headwaters Funds are
segregated from the General Fund and budget of the County. The
funds are irrevocably committed to the Headwaters Fund and cannot
be used for financing on-going government operations. The funds
are considered “un-available” to the County for general purpose
spending or working capital, even during times of fiscal
emergencies. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
d) Variances to guidelines for the Revolving Loan Fund, Community
Investment Fund, and Grant Fund can be granted for specific projects
under select circumstances where it can be shown that the variance will
further the ultimate goals of the Fund. To qualify for a funding
criteria variance, a project must provide extraordinary benefits in
line with the appropriate ranking criteria. Funding variance
applications must fit under the “Extraordinary Project Criteria” in the
Community Investment Fund manual and shall be approved by the Board of
Supervisors by a four-fifths super-majority vote. However, variances
cannot include any use of Headwaters Fund monies for general County
purposes. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
2151-3. CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT.
a) Within the scope of powers outlined in this document, the Board of
Supervisors has final authority on use of Headwaters Funds. A
Headwaters Fund Board, County Economic Development Division staff and
the Treasurer/Tax Collector implement the program. Applications for
funding from local businesses, community groups and governmental
organizations are brought to the Headwaters Fund Board or qualified
financial institutions. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) The Board of Supervisors has the final authority and accountability for
the use of the funds, within the scope of powers outlined in this
document. They appoint members to the Headwaters Fund Board and oversee
County staff support. They review and approve Headwaters Fund Board
funding recommendations. The Board also provides oversight of the
process focusing on the following issues: (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
i) Adherence to the Headwaters Fund Charter; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
ii) Review and approval of policies and annual budgets; (Ord. No. 2289,
§ 1, 12/17/2002)
iii) Public involvement and reporting; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
139
§ 2151-3
iv) Objective implementation of the grant approval process; (Ord. No.
2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
v) Approval of Grant and Community Investment Fund projects
recommended by Headwaters Fund Board and staff; (Ord. No. 2289, §
1, 12/17/2002)
vi) Proper financial management of the Liquidity Fund, Revolving Loan
Funds, Community Investment Funds, and Grant Funds; (Ord. No. 2289,
§ 1, 12/17/2002)
vii) Periodic updates and revisions to the Charter. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
c) The Headwaters Fund Board (HFB) consists of seven members of the
community appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The role of the HFB is
the following: (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
i) Reviews and recommends to the Board of Supervisors the Grant and
Community Investment Fund projects for funding according to
Headwaters Fund guidelines; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
ii) Recommends to the Board of Supervisors the annual budgets for
loans, investments, grants and administration; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
iii) Recommends to the Board of Supervisors the Headwaters Fund
policies and funding criteria; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
iv) Reviews portfolio management strategy in accordance with Charter
goals; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
v) Recommends to the Board of Supervisors updates, revisions and
variances to the Headwaters Fund Charter; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
vi) Issues annual Community Benefits Report on the overall Headwaters
Fund portfolio. The Community Benefits Report will summarize
chosen projects of the Headwaters Fund and their benefits to the
community. The report will include a financial summary of fund
balances, expenditures, and revenues and a profile of significant
community outreach, public participation and application
processing activities. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
vii) The HFB will be provided with staff support and an annual budget
for technical or financial consulting to assist in application
analysis and review. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
d) Treasurer/Tax Collector manages the Headwaters Liquidity Fund. This
fund contains the primary principal. Disbursements are made from this
fund to the Revolving Loan Fund, Community Investment Fund and Grant
Fund as funding applications are approved. The Treasurer/Tax Collector
must abide by public investment and Headwaters Fund guidelines and
periodically report financial activity. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
e) Headwaters Fund Staff consists of the Director of Community Development
Services and staff of the Economic Development Division. The role of
the staff is the following: (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
i) Implementation of the Headwaters Fund program from development
and administration of systems, to program evaluation and
reporting; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
ii) Assists the public in preparing Grant and Community Investment
Fund applications; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
iii) Screens Grant and Community Investment Fund project applications;
(Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
iv) Monitors loan portfolio and financial institution performance;
(Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
v) Collects and compiles data on investment impacts and prepares
annual draft of Community Benefits Report; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
vi) Works jointly with Treasurer/Tax Collector on financial
management and reporting; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
140
§ 2151-3
vii) Maintains budgets, accounting and bookkeeping systems with the
County Auditor and Controller; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
viii) Provides public information, maintains program manuals and
records, and provides legal support to HFB; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
ix) Provides administrative support to HFB and Board of Supervisors.
(Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
x) Legal support is provided by the County Counsel assigned to
Community Development Services. Staff will be ultimately
responsible to the Board of Supervisors for meeting Headwaters
Fund expectations. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
f) Qualified Financial Institutions package, underwrite, and service
financing made through the Headwaters Revolving Loan Fund. A financial
institution applies to the Headwaters Fund staff and HFB to become a
qualified financial institution; the Board of Supervisors approves
financial institution contracts for access to Headwaters Revolving Loan
Funds. Loan products, terms, audit provision and reporting are
specified by contract. Contract terms must be consistent with the Board
of Supervisors adopted Revolving Loan Fund Administration Manual.
i) Revolving Loan Fund applicants apply directly to these financial
institutions for funding. The financial institutions evaluate and
approve the financing according to their criteria, the Headwaters
Fund criteria, and the specific covenants of their contracts with
the County. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
g) Local Businesses, Community Groups and Governments prepare loan and
grant applications consistent with Headwaters Fund criteria and
implement Headwaters Fund projects under contract with qualified
financial institutions or the County. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
2151-4. PROGRAM RULES.
a) The operations of the Headwaters Fund shall be governed by this Charter
and the following Program Manuals: (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
i) Headwaters Fund Board Manual; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
ii) Headwaters Revolving Loan Fund Manual; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
iii) Headwaters Grant Fund Manual; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
iv) Headwaters Community Investment Fund Manual; (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
v) Other manuals as needed. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the Charter by ordinance. The
Program Manuals shall be adopted by resolution. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1,
12/17/2002)
2151-5. REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS.
a) Sections 1 and 2 of this document (Name & Purpose, Fund Structure and
Activities), can only be changed by Humboldt County voter approval in
a simple majority referendum. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
b) Changes in any other section of this document must be approved by the
Board of Supervisors with a four-fifths vote. Under no circumstances,
except those specifically outlined in section 2C of this document, will
Headwaters Fund monies be accessible for general purpose County
spending. The Charter shall be subject to a comprehensive review after
the first full year of operation and once every three years thereafter.
(Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
141
§ 2151-5
c) Major modifications of the Program Manuals must also be approved by the
Board of Supervisors by a majority vote. Minor modifications of the
Program Manuals involving technical updates, correction of errors and
editorial content or format can be completed by staff and approved by
the Headwaters Fund Board. The Program Manuals shall be subject to a
comprehensive review after the first full year of operation and once
every three years thereafter. (Ord. No. 2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
d) The comprehensive reviews of the Charter and Program Manuals will
include an evaluation of the Fund’s effectiveness and recommendations
for revisions or amendments. The public and participants in Fund
activities will be given an opportunity to provide comment and
participate in the drafting of the review. The review will be prepared
by staff and incorporated in the annual Community Benefits Report. The
report will be reviewed and approved by the Headwaters Fund Board and
forwarded, with recommendations, to the Board of Supervisors. (Ord. No.
2289, § 1, 12/17/2002)
142