Atwater leaders stand by ‘business sanctuary city’ stance after state withholds funds
A day after the City of Atwater received news that the state is withholding its coronavirus relief funding, city officials were reeling.
That doesn’t mean, however, that city officials plan to change course on keeping Atwater as a “sanctuary city for business” amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services sent a letter to the city on Thursday notifying officials that due to their resolution defying state public health orders, Atwater is cut off from certain funds.
The action was taken after Atwater City Council unanimously passed a “sanctuary city” resolution in May allowing all businesses and churches to reopen ahead of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s staged reopening plan without concern of local enforcement.
Now, the state is holding on to Atwater’s first Coronavirus Relief Fund allocation of $64,833, with the potential of withholding up to $387,428 in state assistance until the sanctuary city resolution is rescinded.
“I kind of expected this, but it’s a purely political move,” said Councilmember Brian Raymond, who originally floated the sanctuary city concept to the City Council. Raymond said he and other city officials found out about the news from the media rather than from the state.
City Council stands by resolution
Thursday, Mayor Paul Creighton firmly stated he had no intention of rescinding the sanctuary city resolution.
Vierra and Raymond concurred, both noting that they hadn’t heard from any constituents who said the city should back down. Raymond said that since the news broke, he’s gotten feedback from 25-30 individuals – all urging the city to maintain its stance.
“I’m shocked, in disbelief,” said Atwater City Councilmember Cindy Vierra.
Vierra encouraged residents with concerns on both sides to share their thoughts at Monday’s City Council meeting.
Prior to passing the resolution, the City Council faced growing pleas from local small business owners who said their business could not survive state-mandated closures much longer.
“We’re just a small community, and these businesses were built on our business owners backs,” Vierra said. “We had an outcry.”
Councilmember John Cale also said he continues to support the sanctuary city resolution. Councilmember Danny Ambriz could not be immediately reached by the Sun-Star. However, between the mayor, Cale, Vierra and Raymond, a majority of the City Council continued to back the resolution as of Friday.
If Atwater refuses to revoke its resolution in defiance of Newsom’s orders, it begs the question of how the city’s relationship with the state will be impacted going forward.
OES officials on Friday did not respond to a query from the Sun-Star seeking to learn more about what it will mean for the City of Atwater if the resolution is not rescinded.
Withholding funding is a common tactic by higher governments to get lower ones to comply with certain policies, UC Merced political science professor and department chair Jessica Trounstine said.
“The goal is to get the lower level of government to change their policy,” she said. “Once a higher level of government has made a statement about linking funding to some policy, they’re not going to change.”
Typically, there is no lasting damage to the relationship once the lower government complies, Trounstine said.
As of now, compliance seems unlikely. Raymond said there will be conversations with the city attorney to see what Atwater’s options are.
If Atwater doesn’t rescind its resolution, the impact of losing CRF dollars hinges in part on what percentage of the city’s budget it accounts for. Raymond pointed out that the city balanced its budget without taking the funds into account.
Community concerns
Another factor is how Atwater residents perceive the city refusing to stand down.
“You could imagine that residents thought this wouldn’t be consequential,” Trounstine said. “But now it’s consequential.”
When the City Council passed the resolution, the estimated 200-plus attendees from the city and beyond showed up largely in support of Atwater’s stance. Trounstine noted, however, that individuals who speak during public comment are not necessarily representative of how constituents feel as a whole, or how they will vote come local elections.
Only one resident spoke up in opposition at the meeting. That person, Caleb Hampton, later started a petition asking the City Council to announce a stay of the resolution until certain coronavirus concerns are addressed. It has 906 signatures to date.
The petition asks City Council to recommend cautionary measures in alignment with the county public health order’s guidelines of social distancing, face coverings and sanitation. Atwater opted to leave safety measures up to business owners’ discretion, which Hampton said resulted in “catastrophic confusion” and precautions that vary significantly from business to business.
Atwater officials have repeatedly said that they reopened safely, and have instructed local businesses to do the same if they choose to open their doors.
But some community members at council meetings and online have pointed out that even after Newsom mandated masks statewide on June 18, city officials have set a poor example by not wearing masks during council meetings.
The OES letter to Atwater noted elevated COVID-19 transmission in Merced County. Friday, the positive test rate, which notes the percentage off all individuals screened for the virus locally who test positive, rose to 18.3%. That’s significantly above the California Department of Public Health’s ideal maximum of 8%.
Atwater on Friday claimed 483 of the county’s 3,245 total coronavirus cases, making it the second-most affected local community after the City of Merced.
This story was originally published July 24, 2020 at 6:34 PM.
