Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palmdale residents press council for transparency over AV Edge payments and call for Measure PD review
Summary
Public commenters accused the city of insufficient oversight of $300,000 in payments to AV Edge and questioned a $10 million Palmdale contribution to a Lancaster project; council members agreed to bring further consideration of Measure PD back for study and possible ballot action.
Sandy Carpenter and a string of Palmdale residents used the public‑comment period at the May 5 Palmdale City Council meeting to demand detailed accounting of city payments to AV Edge, a regional economic‑development nonprofit, and to press the council over recent local sales‑tax changes.
Carpenter said community records indicate nearly $300,000 in taxpayer funds went to AV Edge and asked plainly, "Where are the verified jobs created in Palmdale? Where are the businesses brought into the city? Where is the proof this money directly benefited Palmdale residents?" Several other speakers echoed that demand, urging audits and public reporting about contractual obligations and measurable outcomes.
Other commenters tied the AV Edge questions to a larger tax policy debate, criticizing the city’s adoption of Measure PD (an automatic local sales‑tax increase mechanism) and the city’s reported $10 million commitment toward a Lancaster regional facility. Eugene Hernandez said the transfers looked improper and called for investigations by state and county authorities.
Mayor Eric Olson responded that the council aims to be transparent and noted an outside investigation is underway in a neighboring jurisdiction. Olson said the city would “put out all the information in the appropriate way” and stressed the council is simultaneously addressing a county ballot measure (Measure ER) that could affect Palmdale’s local tax cap.
Council members agreed to consider additional steps: one member read a motion asking staff and the city attorney to prepare resolutions that would explore placing repeal or deferral of Measure PD before voters at a future election. The mayor and other members emphasized timing concerns tied to the county ballot and pending state legislation but agreed to bring the motion back for further council consideration.
What happens next: Council directed staff to schedule follow‑up discussion; at the end of the meeting members also asked staff to set a special meeting to explore a council statement and possible next steps regarding the county measure.
