Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure B Spending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atwater oversight committee presses city staff for clearer accounting of Measure B spending and master plan deliverables
Summary
Residents and committee members questioned roughly $182,500 paid toward a public safety master plan and other Measure B expenditures, asking staff for deliverables and clearer budget line-item descriptions; staff said a draft is under review and will be shared with the committee when presented to city council.
Atwater City’s Citizens Oversight Committee for the public safety transaction and use tax spent much of its meeting pressing staff for clarity about how Measure B funds have been spent and what the city has received in return.
During public comment, resident Linda Atwater urged the committee to scrutinize recent expenditures, citing an $11,000 purchase of training equipment and expressing concern that a public safety master plan had been budgeted at about $200,000. “I think it’s misuse of public funds,” Linda Atwater said, and reported she has contacted a state official about an audit and possible reimbursement to the general fund.
Committee members raised related concerns during staff reports. Finance Director Nicholas said the committee’s requested accounts-payable transaction report and an unaudited year-to-date budget status were included in the meeting packet and noted that sales-tax revenue for the Measure B fund had been revised down by about $85,300 based on the city consultant’s forecast.
Several members, including Committee Member Price, questioned a $182,500 payment shown for the public safety master plan and asked whether the city had received deliverables. City Manager Chris and Assistant Fire Chief Mark Pimentel told the committee that staff has received a draft master plan and is reviewing it; Chris said the draft will be presented to the city council soon and committee members will be notified so they can review the document concurrently.
Staff also pointed to the text of the City’s Measure B ordinance to explain allowable uses. Chris read the ordinance language describing three categories for police-related expenditures: equipment and apparatus; salaries and benefits for police personnel; and a broad third category — other police protection service expenses — that the city council may deem necessary. Staff said that shared training equipment and similar items fall under that third category as decisions of the council.
Committee members pressed for greater transparency. Price and others asked for clearer budget line-item labeling — specifically, which entries represented CAL FIRE contract costs, which were for professional services, and which were for capital improvements such as station repairs or ADA upgrades. Nicholas and other staff agreed to provide a clearer printout linking account numbers to descriptions and recommended that committee members bring the budget printout to future meetings for side-by-side review.
City Manager Chris committed to posting a follow-up FAQ or report on the city’s website summarizing answers to the committee’s questions and sharing the link with committee members. He also said he would check with the city attorney about whether the oversight committee could be given additional recommendation authority or whether any change would require further legal or voter action.
The committee did not take formal remedial action on the questioned expenditures at the meeting; members asked staff to provide the draft master plan and more detailed budget documentation before the next meeting.
