Grass Valley Measure B oversight committee recommends FY25-26 budget as consistent with Measure B, 4-1

The City of Grass Valley Measure B Citizen Oversight Committee on Thursday, May 22, 2025, voted 4-1 to recommend that the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget for the Measure B fund is consistent with the city's previously adopted expenditure plan.

The committee's recommendation follows staff presentations of revenue forecasts and proposed expenditures under the local sales-tax-funded Measure B program. Tim (staff presenter) told the committee that a third-party forecaster, HDL, projects Measure B sales-tax receipts at roughly $2,576,000 for the coming year and that final numbers will be adjusted after quarterly state true-ups.

Under the proposed budget, the city would continue funding eight firefighter positions supported in part by Measure B; the staffing line reflects adding one additional firefighter above the level the measure initially described. The budget also funds the city's vegetation management program (two positions) and includes program lines for fuel-reduction grants and long-term green-waste solutions.

Vegetation Management Manager Dwayne described how the program currently uses a Prop 64–funded remote-control masticator and said the department is seeking flexibility from a second, more versatile tracked unit that would accept multiple attachments (masticator heads, mower deck, grappler). Dwayne said the additional equipment would increase the crew's capacity and reduce subcontracting costs. “We're being very, very, efficient with your money, with the public's money,” Dwayne said.

Staff presented a $200,000 optional equipment purchase in the proposed budget; that line is flagged as discretionary. Other key expenditure items identified in staff materials included a $100,000 line for green-waste pickup and $250,000 for grant-funded fuel-reduction assistance. The draft budget also assumes some reimbursement revenue for strike-team deployments is possible but uncertain; staff said reimbursements could range from $0 to $100,000 depending on fire-season activity.

On fund balance, staff showed a beginning balance of roughly $1.1 million and an estimated ending balance of about $386,000 under the higher-expenditure scenario that includes the optional equipment. Staff emphasized Measure B is intended to be spent on projects and services rather than accumulate large reserves.

A committee member raised procedural concerns about the timing of the council's expenditure-plan adoption relative to the ordinance authorizing Measure B and argued that the public had not yet had the promised hearing; that member voted against the recommendation. Staff and other committee members responded that the city attorney advised the process followed and that the committee's role is to determine whether line items comply with the expenditure plan adopted by the council.

After public-comment was opened and closed with no callers or emailed comments on the item, a committee member moved to recommend the proposed FY25–26 Measure B budget as compatible with the expenditure plan. The committee recorded four votes in favor and one opposed; the committee will forward its recommendation to the City Council for final action.

Clarifying details provided during the meeting included: staff uses HDL for sales-tax forecasting; the Prop 64 purchase paid for the existing remote-control masticator; the optional new tracked unit would cost about $200,000; $250,000 is budgeted for fuel-reduction grants; $100,000 is shown for green-waste pickup; beginning fund balance approximately $1.1 million and estimated ending balance approximately $386,000 under the proposed spend plan.

The committee's recommendation does not itself authorize purchases or contract awards; those actions would require subsequent council approvals or procurement steps. The committee's vote closes the oversight review portion of the Measure B process and transmits the committee's finding to the City Council for further policy or budget action.

Notes: all direct quotations and attributions in this article are taken from the public meeting record. The committee's recommendation was procedural (a compatibility finding) and not a final appropriation or procurement authorization.