Supervisors End Cost Sharing for Eureka Courthouse Security

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Jan. 6 to terminate the county’s cost‑sharing agreement with the Humboldt County Superior Court for weapons and entrance screening at the Eureka courthouse “as soon as administratively feasible,” citing dramatic increases in private security costs that the county said it cannot absorb.

County administrative staff and elected officials told the board that private security hourly wages rose sharply in 2025, driving up the total price of screening contracts. Historically the court paid roughly 83% of screening costs, about $17,790 per month. County administrative staff and the sheriff said continuing the county’s portion would require roughly $200,000 per year — a figure the county budget cannot sustain given current fiscal constraints and potential future increases.

Humboldt County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes and Sheriff William Honsal informed supervisors that county resources are insufficient to keep covering the elevated share. Superior Court Judge Kelly Neel urged the board and court to pursue state funding to meet mandated trial court security obligations. In response, the board directed county staff and the sheriff’s office to work with the Superior Court to develop new trial court security protocols that comply with state law and operational needs.

Under the board’s direction, staff will return with a draft security procedure before the end of the current fiscal year on June 30, 2026. The board also instructed staff to reach out to state and federal lawmakers to seek assistance in funding court security, signaling a push for external support rather than additional county expenditures.

The decision will affect how the Eureka courthouse manages entry screening and could change visitor procedures, staffing patterns, and contract arrangements in the short term. County and court officials must balance statutory responsibilities to protect courtrooms and participants against constrained local budgets that currently lack the capacity to absorb rising private security costs.

The board considered other matters during the same meeting, including a discussion of SB 684, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act, and proposed adjustments to the county’s cannabis land‑use ordinance. Those agenda items, along with the courthouse security decision, reflect ongoing fiscal and regulatory pressures shaping county policy choices this year.

Residents and courthouse users can expect additional details and a proposed security procedure from county staff before June 30, 2026, while elected leaders pursue state and federal avenues for potential funding.