Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure B Expenditure Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over Measure B spending; staff unveils draft public‑safety expenditure plan
Summary
After public commenters accused the city of using Measure B funds for facility upgrades and non‑frontline items, staff presented a draft public safety expenditure plan to clarify eligible categories and guide future Measure B spending; council and residents urged greater pre‑approval visibility for non‑routine uses.
Frustration over how Atwater’s Measure B public safety sales tax has been spent surfaced sharply during Tuesday’s budget workshop, prompting staff to present a draft public safety expenditure plan intended to clarify the ordinance’s language and provide guidance for future spending.
Multiple public commenters and members of the Measure B oversight committee argued the fund has been used for items they consider outside the spirit of the measure—pointing to station improvements, exercise equipment and other facility upgrades. "This is a misappropriation of funds. Plain and simple," said Linda Dash, who has served on the oversight committee.
City staff and police leadership countered that several safety items were acquired via grants and that some expenditures fall into the ordinance’s broad category of "such other police protection service expenses." An unnamed Police Chief told the meeting that "all the vests for all the officers were replaced in this last year through a justice grant," and staff said a proposed Measure B expenditure plan would list examples and help guide future decisions.
Chris, a staff member who introduced the draft plan, said the ordinance has three categories: equipment and apparatus; salaries and benefits; and other police/fire protection service expenses. The draft plan offers examples and seeks direction from council to make the measures and expectations clearer to the public and oversight bodies.
Council members and the city attorney discussed whether the ordinance’s examples leave capital expenditures more explicit for fire than police and whether the council should review non‑routine Measure B expenditures before they are executed. Staff cautioned that requiring council approval for every Measure B disbursement could impede timely emergency responses and vendor payments; staff suggested the expenditure plan be used to set boundaries and direction while keeping routine administration delegated to staff.
Staff said they will bring a revised public safety expenditure plan back to the council for further consideration on June 9, and residents asked that future reporting make line‑item Measure B spending plainly visible in the agenda packet so the public and oversight committee can evaluate compliance with the ordinance.
