Stockton officials review Measure A spending and audit findings as council presses for clearer reporting
Loading...
Summary
Budget staff and the independent auditor told the council that Measure A proceeds have largely funded public safety as intended but recommended clearer annual plans and public reporting after a performance audit found no compliance issues but urged better guidance on expenditure priorities.
City budget staff and the contracted auditor presented an overview of Measure A, the voter-approved general sales tax originally adopted in 2013 to fund public-safety and bankruptcy recovery efforts, and outlined steps to make its spending more transparent.
Budget officer Imelda Arroyo walked council through a 10-year schedule of Measure A revenues and uses and described the Measure A expenditure guidelines the city adopted in 2024 to help align spending with the advisory 65/35 public safety/general services split. Arroyo said the cumulative share spent on public-safety-related uses has been about 62% over the life of the measure.
Colleen Rosales of Moss Adams, which performs the city's audit and the Measure A agreed-upon-procedures engagement, said the performance audit found no compliance problems but recommended a formal, regularly updated expenditure plan and clearer public reporting so residents can readily see how much money was raised, how it was budgeted and what outcomes were achieved. "There was not ever a plan put together, like the expenditure plan that was referred to tonight, over the course of 10 years," Rosales said, urging ongoing benchmarking and better public communication.
Deputy Chief Tony Sager and PD leaders described recruitment and retention work funded in part by Measure A, showing hiring and attrition data and recruitment strategies (continuous testing, expanded academy participation and community outreach). Sager said the department had hired dozens of sworn officers and was focused on retention steps that include pay, wellness and supervision improvements.
Council members pressed staff on specifics: how total Measure A revenues are tracked, how the 65% figure is computed (staff and the auditor confirmed tracking exists via a subfund and agreed-upon-procedures reports) and whether unspent Measure A funds could be shown in the budget as a dedicated subreserve. Interim CFO staff said they would present options to show Measure A balances and make the allocation visible in the budget documents going forward.
Residents in the public comment period urged stronger oversight and suggested limiting the number and concentration of new retail businesses (comments later in the meeting focused on a separate cannabis permit). Several councilmembers signaled they will press for regular, public-facing reporting on Measure A, updated KPIs and a plan to track outcomes tied to the Marshall Plan on Crime and related initiatives.
The council did not take a formal vote on Measure A policy changes at this meeting but directed staff to return with clearer budget presentation and ongoing audit and oversight steps.
