During a four-year span when Hollister exhausted nearly half of
its rainy day reserve, the city bought 82 new vehicles for $2.4
million and spent a total of $7.1 million on capital improvements
from the deficit-ridden general fund.
During a four-year span when Hollister exhausted nearly half of its rainy day reserve, the city bought 82 new vehicles for $2.4 million and spent a total of $7.1 million on capital improvements from the deficit-ridden general fund.
That spending on vehicles from 2000-2003 included more than $1 million on cars, pickup trucks and minivans, according to records obtained by the Free Lance using the California Public Records Act.
City Councilman Robert Scattini has blasted Hollister leaders for what he believes was often unnecessary spending on capital – including vehicles – in recent years.
“If we’re ever going to get back on solid grounds, we have to change a lot,” City Councilman Robert Scattini said when he heard the figures Tuesday.
The city currently maintains a total fleet of about 80 vehicles that are commonly used on public roads – about the same number of automobiles purchased during that four-year period, according to maintenance manager Al Duran. Those vehicles also include police cars, fire engines, dump trucks and others.
Hollister’s total fleet, including such equipment as forklifts and loaders, is 220.
Knowing the reality of Hollister’s dire fiscal future, though, Hollister officials already have put the brakes on vehicle spending. The council hasn’t approved the purchase of a single vehicle in 2004. And the last buy goes back at least eight months, according to interim Public Works Director Steve Wittry.
Moreover, a consultant who reviewed Hollister’s financial forecast pointed out that the city spent only $364,000 on capital improvements in the recently completed fiscal year. Capital goods include tangible possessions, such as computer systems, road maintenance and fire engines.
The firm recommended in a report that Hollister defer major capital improvements “unless absolutely necessary.”
But from 2000-2002 when officials were less cautious about spending, the general fund reserve dropped from more than $15 million to about $8 million. Now facing projected deficits for the next several years, leaders expect the city’s general fund savings – currently $7 million – could vanish within three years.
Taking office in early 2003, Scattini has particularly harped on staff-requested vehicles and other relatively minor expenses. He led the council’s rejection in April of the Police Department’s request for a nearly $30,000 parking enforcement vehicle.
Tuesday, he blamed the city’s previous spending habits on management – particularly former City Manager George Lewis and former Finance Director Barbara Mulholland. He also blamed the council.
“She took a lot of heat and she’s still taking a lot of heat,” Scattini said of Mulholland. “Obviously, the city council is in the driver’s seat. Everything filters to the city council. Somebody’s got to be responsible for these expenditures.”
Mayor Tony Bruscia and other council members have faulted the Finance Department for failing to point out that those costs were being allocated out of a rainy day reserve.
Furthermore, Bruscia said city staff didn’t tell the council enough about a skyrocketing rise in projected costs – and a coinciding decline in revenues.
But Bruscia also believes spending on many vehicles and other capital goods was warranted, he said.
If the city holds off on capital improvements, such as new cars, it would have to replace many of them at once, he said, and could lose even more money on maintenance costs that rise with age.
He’s concerned Hollister may now be spending too conservatively.
“Five years from now we’re going to be in this huge hole where there’s a bunch of capital that’s old and needs to be replaced,” he said.
Though he acknowledged that if the council from 2000-2002 had known about the future budget deficits, he likely wouldn’t have supported buying so many new vehicles.
“I wish we would have known more,” he said.
