Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Callers question $500,000 inspector-general cost and transparency of process
Summary
Two callers at Riverside's special council meeting praised voter approval of Measure L but questioned the cost estimate for an inspector general office (cited at $500,000) and raised concerns about Sunshine Act compliance and pension shortfalls ahead of budget work.
Two callers who spoke during public comment at the Riverside City Council's special meeting raised fiscal and procedural concerns about implementing Measure L.
Pete Benavides, who identified himself and stated his employer as Blindness Support, said implementing the new office requires funding, structure and consideration of where the position would be housed. "You have to have it funded. You have to make sure it's structured," Benavides said, urging the council to take the time needed to get it right.
Another caller identifying himself as Rich Gardner, Ward 4, said the process had taken too long and expressed concern that the council had been circumventing Sunshine Act notice requirements. Gardner questioned the $500,000 figure for the office's cost and referenced a pension shortfall in 2019 "like almost $500,000,000," noting bonds had been issued to address funding but that further fiscal work remained.
The comments indicate public interest in cost estimates and transparency as the city moves to implement the inspector general role. The council did not provide public cost details or a fiscal analysis during this meeting and took no vote.
