With $300 million coming from feds, Sacramento County looks to correct past misspending
.JPG "Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost, right, speaks from behind a plastic screen during a board meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2021, as supervisors Patrick Kennedy, left, and Rich Desmond, wear masks while they listen. Front was the only supervisor who did not wear a mask.")
In an unorthodox plan for spending some of the $301 million headed Sacramento County’s way from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, the Board of Supervisors voted in September to direct $5 million to each member to spend in their district. It’s a plan that attempts to correct past misspending by the county — but also raises questions of its own.
The county has already experienced public pratfalls over its handling of federal relief dollars. Who could forget when it was found to be funneling more than $100 million in federal CARES Act money to the Sheriff’s Office instead? County officials maintain the money ultimately went to COVID-19 relief, but the entire controversy triggered a furious public response. Former County CEO Nav Gill was forced to retire earlier this year after revelations about the questionable spending as well as allegations of fostering a toxic workplace culture.
This time around, a general allocation of the federal funding was approved, with specific projects yet to be determined. So far, county officials say they intend to focus on homelessness and housing, health, and the region’s economic recovery, as well as premium pay for essential workers. The latest federal stimulus promises $1.9 trillion for cities, counties and public programs to cope with the effects of the pandemic-related economic downturn.
Supervisor Phil Serna proposed the district-specific funding on the premise that each supervisor knows his or her district better than county staff and can direct funds toward projects that otherwise would have been overlooked.
“I think it adds some accountability,” Serna said. “This is some substantial funding to do some real good for the communities we represent.”
The board was criticized for failing to exercise more oversight of the spending of last year’s federal stimulus funding. But letting the supervisors spend the money themselves might prove to be an overcorrection.
Those decisions are normally left to the county staff to bring before the board for approval. When elected officials start getting their hands into the process, politics could play a greater role in spending decisions.
Flojaune Cofer, senior director of policy for Public Health Advocates, said the $5 million going to each district should be carefully evaluated.
“There needs to be a little more thought in advance, and a little more sunshine,” she said. Cofer suggested the county consider public hearings on what the supervisors would do with the money, calling the plan so far “amorphous.”
Cofer added that the county isn’t set up to track the impact of these funds from district to district. So it will be difficult to assess the efficacy of the spending in solving the problems unleashed by the pandemic and subsequent economic collapse.
Moreover, the needs of District 1 are not the needs of District 2, and so on.
“Equal is not necessarily equitable,” Cofer said.
So far, Supervisor Rich Desmond has hinted that he’d like to fund beautification projects along with schools and roads in his district. Serna said he wants to partner with agencies that have already received some federal funds to boost their plans and find some “small-to-medium-sized projects” that would otherwise be overlooked. Patrick Kennedy was the only supervisor who dissented from the plan to divvy up the funds.
The general spending categories approved earlier this month for the first $150 million in federal funding (minus the $25 million for the five districts and $11 million for essential workers) included $59 million for affordable housing, rental assistance and support services for the homeless. Another $19.8 million will go to COVID mitigation efforts, mental health services and access to healthcare. An additional $19.8 million will go to “economic response,” such as direct assistance to small businesses and nonprofit organizations and grants to chambers of commerce and property and business improvement districts.
The remaining $15 million will be set aside for program administration, the county announced, to “ensure a centralized grant management process, and track and assure program and fiscal integrity.”
The supervisors have yet to commit their portion of the money to specific projects, but they’re asking us to trust them and their knowledge of their districts. Whether they’ve earned that trust is another question.
