Del Norte supervisors decline to approve Harbor Facilities Plan amid disputes over Measure C loan repayment and transparency

The Del Norte County Board of Supervisors opened a contentious discussion of the Crescent City Harbor District’s Harbor Facilities Plan and voted to take no action after weeks of public concern over whether Measure C funds had been used to repay a required USDA loan.

County staff and several supervisors told the harbor representatives that the board’s first question was whether the harbor had made the loan payment referenced in the Measure C agreement. The harbor’s fiscal officer described “precarious financial” circumstances, said there is approximately $293,000 in the harbor’s TOT account as of June 30 and estimated up to about $370,000 including recent collections, and outlined a multi-pronged plan — including short-term negotiations with USDA, reorganization and use of grant funds — to stabilize cash flow. The fiscal officer said the harbor has proposed asking USDA to accept 10% of the annual payment for each of the next three years to preserve operating funds for maintenance and grant-matching.

Public commenters pressed the board for greater transparency and documentation. One speaker alleged repeated misrepresentation by Harbor Master Rademacher and the harbor bookkeeper and said he had filed federal and state complaints; the speaker said two past grand-jury reports pointed to embezzlement and alleged the harbor had deferred bills to make budgets look balanced. The commenter told the board: “Rademacher intentionally lied to the commissioners and the public.” (Public commenter, Dec. meeting.)

Harbor Commissioner Gerard Weber urged the supervisors to approve the facilities plan so the harbor could show USDA an approved plan and thereby increase the harbor’s chances of negotiating a reduced annual payment: “You approving that facility’s plan doesn’t give us any money. But without your approval, we are going back to USDA and they’re going to say your plan hasn’t been approved by the supervisors,” he said.

Board members repeatedly asked for clearer accounting and written guarantees from USDA or another authority before they would be comfortable approving the plan. One supervisor said prior attempts to secure changes from USDA had not produced binding commitments and expressed little confidence that USDA would accept a multi-year, reduced-payment arrangement without documentation.

County counsel and auditors flagged that Measure C’s primary purpose was to ensure the USDA loan would be repaid; county staff said the county’s legal obligation is to ensure funds collected under Measure C are spent for the purposes voters approved. In light of lingering questions about whether the required loan payment had been made and the plan’s lack of project-level priorities and timelines, the board chose to take no action and asked the harbor to return with a more detailed, prioritized facilities plan and clearer financial documentation.

What’s next: The harbor may return with revised documentation and a more specific facilities plan that prioritizes maintenance projects and shows how Measure C funds will be allocated once loan repayment questions are resolved. The supervisors said they will consider the item again after receiving that follow-up material.