Santa Maria postpones decisions on spending thresholds and three employment contracts

Your weekly dose of local news, arts, and culture. Our News Wire newsletter lands every Thursday with the stories shaping Northern Santa Barbara County

SEND ME THE HEADLINES!

Proposed inflation adjustments and contract renewals raised red flags for Santa Maria City Council members, who spent most of their June 17 meeting dissecting the consent calendar.

Councilmember Maribel Aguilera-Hernandez pulled one item, while Councilmember Gloria Flores pulled two. The council ultimately tabled their decisions on all three—each of which were related to city spending—until its first meeting of July.

Aguilera-Hernandez motioned to postpone entering into new employment agreements with City Manager David Rowlands and City Attorney Thomas Watson while requesting more time for review.

“I just got the contract regarding the city manager and the city attorney on Monday,” Aguilera-Hernandez said, referring to June 16. “Based on not getting the contract until Monday, not really being able to look at the percentages and all that’s in there, and not having conducted a performance and compensation review, I can’t vote on this. I can’t move forward with this item.”

Aguilera-Hernandez said she was out of the state when the council held closed session performance reviews for both Rowlands and Watson in early June.

Her request to revisit the proposed compensation packages—which would put Rowlands’ salary at $365,799 and Watson’s at $348,380—at the next council meeting passed with a 4-0 vote. Councilmember Gloria Soto was absent.

The council also voted 4-0 to delay an update of Santa Maria’s purchasing guidelines. The update included threshold increases to adjust for inflation and streamline certain purchases and projects. Santa Maria Budget Manager Rick Kirkwood outlined a few examples.

“There are a number of purchases the Public Works Department might have to go out and make for repairs, and under the current guidelines, they might have to buy something that five, six, seven years ago might have cost less than $1,000,” Kirkwood said. “They would not need to go through our requisition process that would require the review of accounting staff and the review of the department director making decisions on each of these things. But now, in today’s world, some of those same materials might cost more than $1,000. So that increase in inflation alone has resulted in more burden and workload.”

Aguilera-Hernandez asked staff when the last update to adjust purchasing thresholds for inflation took place.

“I can’t give you an exact date,” Recreation and Parks Director Alex Posada told the council. “I can tell you that the purchasing policy limits are very old. … Probably well over 15 years old.”

Aguilera-Hernandez said she couldn’t vote to increase the thresholds until she had that information. She then asked staff for a more thorough breakdown of each proposed threshold increase. 

“I’m not opposed to increasing the purchasing thresholds,” she said. “We just want a mechanism that we can explain to the taxpayers. Even if it’s $500 or $1,000, it is taxpayer money. … We’re spending money that doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to the taxpayers.”

The last consent calendar item the council postponed was a services agreement with J.D. Humann Inc. for citywide landscape maintenance services.

Councilmember Flores pulled the item and requested that staff research alternative landscaping options for the city to consider in the future, including a potential in-house approach with city or park employees taking over landscape maintenance rather than hiring contractors. 

“I have a concern because a lot of my constituents in District 2, in the south area, [say] it’s neglected. … I get a lot of phone calls,” Flores said. “Why would I agree to go into a contract with a landscaping company that’s not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. … I think we should look at this in a different manner.”

This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 6, 2025.