Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Finance Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tulare Public Cemetery trustees approve reversing $200,000 transfer after public questions about pre-need funds

5823922 · September 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tulare Public Cemetery District board voted to rescind an earlier transfer and approve moving $200,000 back into the pre-need fund after public commenters and trustees raised questions about whether the original transfer followed legal requirements.

The Tulare Public Cemetery District board voted 4-0 to rescind an earlier action related to a $200,000 transfer and to approve returning the funds to the district's pre-need account, trustees confirmed during a meeting that included multiple public complaints about accounting and legal compliance.

The action stemmed from public comments alleging the pre-need fund — money paid in advance for future burial services — had been transferred into the district's operating account instead of being held in the restricted pre-need account. Public commenters asked the board to use a formal resolution to reverse the transfer and to clarify whether procedures required such a resolution.

Why it matters: Pre-need funds are restricted under state law and, if used improperly, can leave future obligations unfunded. Several speakers told the trustees they believed a prior transfer had used restricted funds for routine operations and asked for the formal paperwork and explanations the district should have provided.

Public speakers pressed the board for transparency and legal compliance. Alberto Aguilar told trustees he had submitted a letter alleging “misuse of public funds” and pointed the board to a prior resolution; he said the pre-need fund was a restricted fund and that “that money can only be used for the intended purpose.” Mary Cepeda and other residents also asked why a resolution was not included with the meeting packet and urged clearer documentation.

District staff and trustees described the procedural steps. A staff member explained the agenda item called for the board to rescind “Resolution No. 202324-7,” which had been the prior authorization related to the $200,000 transfer from pre-need fund 886 to operating fund 772, and then to approve a transfer of $200,000 from operation fund 772 back to pre-need fund 886. Trustees said a resolution would be produced after the board's motion to formalize those two actions.

Trustees debated whether the resolution text needed to be included in the published packet. Supervisor McCarrie said the board was used to seeing proposed resolutions attached to agenda items; staff replied that the district's packet includes attachments in the online materials and that a concise resolution would be produced reflecting the board's two actions.

The board then approved the items. Supervisor McCarrie moved to approve the pulled items, Supervisor Townsend seconded, and the motion passed 4-0 with Supervisor Vanderpool absent. The minutes record the vote as a 4-0 approval.

The meeting record shows continued public demands for clearer, timely documentation of any transfers involving restricted funds and requests that staff and counsel confirm the district followed the Health and Safety Code and other applicable rules when funds were moved.

The board's formal actions on the fund transfers will be finalized in a resolution prepared after the vote; staff said the resolution will specify the rescission and the transfer back into the pre-need account.

Residents who raised the issue asked the board to ensure future transfers include the supporting resolutions and documentation in the public packet so members of the public can review them before votes.