The City of Cypress is the only city in Orange County to be found ineligible from participating in the OC Transportation Agency’s Measure M (M2) funding allocation after an audit apparently revealed the city did not expend the amount of funds it claimed on government paperwork.
A spokesman for OCTA confirmed that “Cypress was the only city currently found inelgible,” noting however that two other cities found ineligible in the past have been reinstated after “the necessary adjustments.”
The city is suspended from participating in the program until it is able to return to compliance, prompting significant investments in its road fund, Council members were told.
In addition, the Council voted 3-2 to limit one of its two oral communications sections of the meeting to in-person only, which eliminates the ability of citizens from using 21st century technologies to make their views known.
In the revamp of their agenda procedures earlier this year, a similar attempt failed, with Mayor Pro-tem Scott Minikus, along with newly installed Council member Bonnie Peat voting to eliminate virtual during the 2nd oral communications.
Mayor Anne Hertz-Mallari, at the meeting several months ago, voted with members David Burke and Frances Marquez to preserve the online access, but inexplicably flipped and voting at the most recent Cypress Council meeting to ban virtual comments from the 2nd oral communications along with Minikus and Peat.
Marquez and Burke again voted against eliminating virtual.
Citizens have often called in during the 2nd oral communications period to express frustration or a difference of opinion with actions taken earlier in the meeting by the Council. Now that they can no longer call in, that threat to the Council goes away.
Hertz-Mallari gave no explanation of why she flip-flopped on the citizen access issue but did say there were other ways for citizens to express their views. In addition, Hertz-Mallari said she was happy with the agenda reforms.
“Overall, I think that the new format has served us well,” she said.
Council member Bonnie Peat said her opinion of why the Council should eliminate virtual comments from the 2nd oral communications period has not changed.
“I think if someone is going to come in and talk about a non-agenda item, I really like see them face-to-face,” said Peat, who voted against the move the first time and remains opposed to allowing virtual comments during the 2nd oral communications.
“What I heard from some people is that ‘you have to consider the working people,’” said Peat, noting that some feel like they simply cannot physically attend the meetings in person due to kids, busy schedules, etc.
She said the 2nd oral communication period happens “later in the meeting so it does accommodate a day work schedule.” In addition, Peat said there are other ways for residents to communicate with their Council members like phone calls and emails.
“We do have other opportunities to get a hold of us,” she said.
Minikus first tried to tie cutting virtual comments from the 2nd oral communications to a motion made by Burke to simply retitle the issue to “oral communications.” Burke refused and the Council voted on the name change unanimously.
Minikus said then “I also move to have the 2nd round of oral communications …to in-person only, to eliminate the virtual participation.” His motion was seconded by Peat and approved 3-2.
Some questioned whether the Council had the right to vote on the policy change, given that it potentially violated the new, much-ballyhooed agenda policy. New rules say any issue voted on should have been noticed in writing in advance, which in this case did not happen.
“We should not make it more difficult for residents to share their views at city council meetings, especially since many residents have health issues, or obligations such as taking care of a family member, that make it difficult for them to attend in person,” said Burke.
“There is a lot of value in residents making comments publicly where other residents who might share their concerns can listen. Public comments hold elected officials accountable in a way that private correspondence does not,” he said.
Marquez immediately argued that eliminaating virutal would be unfair and is unnecessary. “People are busy, they have kids and I feel like we’d be losing people who want to contribute but can’t be here,” she said.
Ironically, Dr. Malini Nagpal asked the Council, “what are you afraid of?”
“I just don’t understand what you, the City Council, is afraid of when people can talk in person online freely,” she said. “What are you afraid of and why are you afraid of free speech.”
“I believe I heard a couple of City Council people say well, there’s multiple channels people can use,” said Dr. Nagpal “Many may not be able to communicate through writing and others all writing may not be comfortable with public speaking,” she said.
Residents and taxpayers deserve the City Council to provide them with virtual access to speak freely and express their opinions, she said.
Regarding the OC Transportation finding, the city of Cypress has been suspended from participating in the OC Transportation Authoirty Measure M (M2) funding allocation after an audit revealed the city had violated the guidelines of the program.
“About every five years we undergo in an audit are We subjected to audit to ensure compliance with all the eligibility provisions necessary to receive and to revenues,” said Finance Director Matt Burton.
“Unfortunately, we did have audit finding with the most recent audit that was completed this past spring. Fortunately, it wasn’t fraud or any other sort of misconduct,” he said.
The OCTA found, however, that Cypress had reported spending a required total of $3.7 million to receive benefits from the Measure M transportation tax. However, an audit of Cypress found that $1.4 million of those local road expenditures that were reported to the OCTA were either “ineligible or unsupported,” according to the draft settlement agreement.
The resulting error has placed Cypress in violation of OCTA’s “Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements, prompting the agency to place Cypress in “suspension” from the program “until satisfactory compliance is achieved,” according to the settlement agreement approved by the Council.
According to a memo from OCTA Chief Executive Officer Darrel E. Johnson, the audit found Cypress “ineligible to receive or apply” for M2 revenues until further notice, it included an order to “suspend payments” until Cypress “can demonstrate compliance” and it will “require the city to demonstrate compliance with M2 eligibility” before being reinstated.
The memo further states that even if the “unsupported” funds Cypress claims they invested in the program did quality, it would not have been enough.
“Even if the unsupported costs were removed from MOE expenditures, the City would not meet its MOE requirement,” said Johnson.
In addition, the error will compel the investment of $8.5 million in local funds towards qualifying projects through 2025 at which the city hopes to be reinstated in the Measure M (M2) program. City officials said new formulas were perhaps to blame for the disrepency and that all funding kept in suspense should be awarded to Cypress once the city is able to restore compliance with the OCTA M2 rules.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated since publication in the ENE after spokesman Eric Carpenter from the OCTA confirmed Cypress was the only city found ineligible after an audit.