FAIRFIELD — The city can clearly show where
Measure P dollars come into the city, and generally how they go out, but the
2019-20 Solano County grand jury reported “Fairfield’s accounting system
currently cannot specifically track how this revenue is spent.”
The concern is about having more specific detail
in the accounting.
“The grand jury found the reports (to the
Fairfield Taxpayers Committee) presented a confusing mixture of forecast
figures and interim budgetary figures,” the grand jury report states. “They
discuss the impacts of Measure P revenues and provide a percentage breakdown of
where they are used.”
For example, the annual report presented in 2019
states that the Measure P fund allocations were: police, 41%; fire, 24%;
streets and roads, 22%; parks and recreation, 6%; (citywide) public safety
support, 4%; and homeless engagement and response team, 3%, the report states.
The report does acknowledge that public
workshops and hearings are held during the budget process, and therefore
Measure P is open to questions and discussion if anyone wants to raise the
issue.
Mayor Harry Price, who just received a copy of
the report, said he is not exactly sure what the grand jury wants to see.
“To some extent, the city is doing that in the
breakdown of the departments and where the money is spent,” Price said.
He noted that the grand jury report specifies
information within each department of Measure P expenditures, such as patrol,
traffic, investigations, administration, dispatch and community services within
the Police Department, although precise breakouts of funding to each category
are not provided.
“I need to spend more time with the report,”
Price said.
He also has called the grand jury for
clarification, he said.
The oversight committee was formed “to ensure
transparency and oversight of the revenue.” The grand jury reports that the
committee “does not participate in the city budgeting process and does not, in
fact, provide input as to the use of Measure P revenues.”
The grand jury made five findings with
corresponding recommendations.
The grand jury recommends the city “develop a
system to track Measure P dollars from collection to disbursement so that the
public can easily see how and where these funds are applied.”
It further recommends the city “enhance public
transparency and consistency by directing the Fairfield Taxpayers Committee to
base any reporting on actual year-end data rather than forecast data.”
The third recommendation calls for the city to
“establish a protocol to validate the accuracy of financial data before it is
published by the Fairfield Taxpayers Committee,” while the fourth
recommendation encourages the city to “expand the scope of the annual audit to
include additional procedures directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of
noncompliance relating to accounting matters.”
The audit recommendation comes from a letter by
the firm that audited the city, which states:
“In connection with our audit, nothing came to
our attention that caused us to believe that the city failed to comply with the
provisions of Ordinance 2012-20, insofar as they relate to the collection,
management and expenditure of Measure P sales taxes in the city general fund.
However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of
such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other
matters may have come to our attention regarding the city’s noncompliance with
the above-referenced terms, provisions, or conditions of the ordinance, insofar
as they relate to accounting matters.”
Finally, the grand jury recommends that the city
amend the resolution that established the Measure P Committee to “define
‘taxpayer.’ ”
Measure P was passed by the voters in 2012,
authorizing the city to collect an additional 1% sales tax for five years.
Voters in 2016 extended the tax through March 31, 2033.
The report, which was released May 28, goes into
extensive detail about the city’s financial condition prior to Measure P and
provides information about those finances after the measure passed and was
extended.
Measure P revenues have represented between 18%
and 20% of the city’s general fund from 2015 to 2019, ranging from $16.64
million in the first of those five years and $19.6 million in the last.
“The funds go into the city general fund along
with those collected from other revenue sources and can be used for any
municipal purpose. The City Manager’s Office and Finance Department, with
support from each of the operating departments, manage the budget process,” the
grand jury report states.
“Public hearings and community workshops are
conducted on the proposed budgets to review all appropriations and sources of
funding. This is the only mechanism for public participation in deciding how
Measure P funds should be used. The city is able to track the sources of revenue,
but since they are comingled in the general fund, the city accounting system,
as currently configured, cannot identify Measure P funds that are allocated to
individual cost centers for specific uses or projects. Therefore, there is
currently no straightforward way to track revenues generated by Measure P to
their specific uses in city operations,” the report states.
Solano County Daily Republic
By Todd R. Hansen
June 16, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment