The admission comes in response to a Public Records Act request by Corliss Lee, founder of the Eastside Voice and the lead ballot argument writer in opposition to the Mayor/Council proposed March 5 ballot measure (vote by mail ballots circulating now) that seeks to eliminate Measure A's current legally specified 2023 reduction date and 2027 end date

LB voters approved the 2016 Measure A sales tax based on ballot label (text below) that promised "independent audits" of Measure A funds. But when Ms. Lee sought to see those audits, she received the following response:

An independent audit of the City’s financial activities is conducted each year by KPMG and includes an audit of Measure A funds. After the audit is complete, the audit results are reported in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (the CAFR) which is available on the City's website at CAFRs. The audit includes the normal tests for accuracy and controls. While there is currently no specific section on Measure A, it is audited. Financial information on Measure A based on the audited financials is available from other City sources, including the budget document and information published as part of the Citizens Committee review. For additional transparency purposes, beginning with the FY 19 audit, specific financial information on Measure A will be added to the CAFR.

[Scroll down for further.]

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opined in a 2004 publication ("How to Defeat Local Sales Tax"): :

Local governments have been placing sales tax measures on the ballot in response to alleged "budgetary problems." Such "budgetary problems" are often a result of wasteful or excessive spending by local government officials, including high pension costs and excessive personnel costs.

Local governments also like to play budgetary shell games in which they place a sales tax measure on the ballot to fund a politically popular purpose, and if the tax passes, it would enable the local government to free up money from the general fund that can then be spent on the pet projects or programs of local politicians.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The Council-approved ballot label (shown to voters moments before they marked their ballots) described the 2016 Measure A General Fund ("blank check") tax as "a Public Safety, Infrastructure Repair and Neighborhood Services" measure, while noting in its text it could be spent to "maintain general services,"

Sponsor

Sponsor

The Mayor/Council ballot label uses similar text for the March 2020 ballot label text (below.)

Sponsor

Undeterred by City Hall's response, Ms. Lee has submitted a second Public Records Act request (although a City Hall response may not arrive until the election is basically over.):

CAFR AUDITS OF MEASURE A. Please provide evidence from KPMG that the audits of Measure A were performed in the years 2017, 2018, 2019.

In a normal audit, I would expect to see the following as evidence of an audit:

• 1) a test or calculation that validates the amount brought into the General Fund by the Measure A Sales tax. This should match what is shown on the Transactions and Use Tax Committee's spreadsheet on Measure A funds (or report a discrepancy).
• 2) the CAFR audit plan showing the topic Measure A and parameters of what was audited (usually these are audit questions to be answered with ref to laws/ordinances/requirements being evaluated taken from the ordinance on Measure A and any written procedures that govern employee processes or computer programming).
• 3) work papers showing the reports pulled, spreadsheet evaluation highlighting any findings/errors encountered. These should illustrate the accuracy of the TUT report.
• 4) An assessment of whether the expenditures shown in the TUT report are consistent with what was promised to the public in terms of spending Measure A dollars. Was the money allocated "in addition to" what was previously budgeted in these accounts using the original baseline expenditures for street repairs, public safety and infrastructure in 2016 and previous years - or was it "replacing" monies spent in previous years?
• 5) Summary report of findings

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.