Helen Ross Fund

The police officers' association rep argued the Helen Ross Fund should not pay for a two-year animal advocate position and objected to a police oversight board recommendation being buried in the animal services report.

Urged the council to honor Helen Ross's intent, fund lasting shelter improvements like spay/neuter services instead of recurring personnel costs, and publish the terms of the gift.

Helen Ross's nephew cited the 2017 resolution barring use of the fund to supplant general funds, and criticized the $160,000 advocate position as consuming a third of the fund.

Questioned transparency of the fund charter, warned of lawsuit risk, and asked whether council members had actually visited the shelter before proposing changes.

Criticized the mayor's and Resendiz's absences, cited civil grand jury reports on the shelter, and feared the advocate position is a step toward outsourcing to Stanislaus County.

Opposed the urban growth boundary initiative, criticized the San Felipe Road fence, and said the $80,000 unrepresented advocate position is too expensive and contrary to Ross's intent.

Spoke to Helen Ross's original intent for the fund to serve shelter animals.

A friend who was with Ross when she died said Ross wanted the money used for shelter services and feared government would take it; asked for the exact trust language and listed needed shelter improvements.

Called the attempt to repurpose the trust "sneaky and calculating" since the late donor and the animals cannot speak for themselves.

Echoed concerns about the fund's use, suggested facility improvements over personnel, and proposed three dangerous dog hearing officers instead of one.