Healdsburg Councilwoman Used Taxpayer Funds to Renovate Her Own Neighborhood

Councilwoman Ariel Kelley approved of the City's budget for capital improvement projects, including the Grove Street Neighborhood Implementation Plan, despite residing on Grove St.

Yesterday, I sent the following email to the Healdsburg City Council & City Management, but did not receive a response:

Greetings City Management,

I am submitting a sworn complaint to the FPPC regarding Councilwoman Ariel Kelley, so I am seeking a response from the City's Attorney prior to doing so.

Councilwoman Ariel Kelley indicated on her annual SEI that both Integrity Build Group & Grey Barn Management share the business address of 14851 Grove Street, Healdsburg CA 95448. However, the website for Integrity Build Group indicates the address is 851 Grove Street Healdsburg, CA, 95448. Ms. Kelley appears to own a residence at 851 Grove Street, presumably her home address. She has previously requested permits for this address per the City of Healdsburg's records.

The 851 Grove St. address was included in the City's 65 Percent Grove St Neighborhood Complete Streets Plan. As part of the bi-annual budget process, City Council establishes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to determine how major investments in new construction projects, renovation of infrastructure, and planning will be made over the upcoming five-year period.

Integrity Build Group’s Client, Mr. Anthony Crabb & Ms. Barbara Grasseschi, were also included in the 65 Percent Grove St Neighborhood Complete Streets Plan.

The CIP is approved by City Council and published in the Adopted Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Program budget documents. Projects are recommended based on approved budgets, policies, guidelines, public safety and/or economic development urgency, approved master plans, and external regulatory agencies.

The special meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Healdsburg held on May 13, 2024 (attached) discussed the preliminary Fiscal Year 2024-25 and 2025-26 budget, to provide feedback and direction to staff on budget elements. Ms. Kelley failed to recuse herself from this discussion. The full agenda packet referenced the Grove Street Neighborhood Plan Implementation as part of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program.

On May 20, 2024, Council received a presentation on the FY 2023-24 City financials through March 31, 2024; and adopted a Resolution approving a budget amendment for the FY 2023-24. Ms. Kelley once again failed to recuse herself from this agenda item.

The May 20, 2024 agenda packet stated the following:

Measure T Fund Revenue and Expenses: Measure T revenue through February totaled $1,838,825 65% of the adopted budget of $2,839,022. The March disbursement of Measure T revenue is anticipated in late May. Revenues to date are trending in line with the current budget and staff will continue to monitor revenues through year end. Measure T expenses through the third quarter of the year totaled $1,228,324, 19% of the $6,481,378 adopted budget. 65% of the expense budget for the current fiscal year is allocated as matching funding for Capital Projects that are funded primarily by grants and development, with $2.9 million allocated to the Fire Substation and approximately $400k each supporting the design of Healdsburg Ave Complete Streets and the Grove Street Neighborhood Implementation Plan. As matching funding, the timing of expenses are commonly incurred as a small proportion of the total or after all other funding is expended. Many of the projects are progressing and expenses not incurred by year end are anticipated to be re-budgeted in the next fiscal year.

The 2024‐29 Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program Summary included the Grove Street Neighborhood Plan Implementation with a drastically increased budget. What changes to the budget were made, and did Councilwoman Kelley recuse herself from all discussions which led up to the budget modification?

While Ms. Kelley technically abstained from voting directly on the Grove St. Neighborhood Plan, she appeared to approve of all budget amendments and funding allocations for the project prior to that point.

This was not the first time she has done this. She did the same exact thing regarding the City's UBI program, and is currently under investigation with the FPPC. Could you please explain why city management, the city attorney & council did not find this to be a conflict of interest? Ms. Kelley's surname was even included by the City in the attached plans. Why did she submit a fabricated address to the FPPC? This looks extremely shady...

Why did the SCTA's Go Sonoma / the City of Healdsburg select Corazon Healdsburg to lead community engagement for the Grove St. Neighborhood Project (see attached)? Councilwoman Kelley was a founder, Board Member and Consultant for Corazon. SCTA Director Kelley represents the City of Healdsburg and joined the SCTA Board of Directors in 2020.

Where are the 2025 minutes for City Council? I requested for Ms. Allan to upload 2025 minutes previously, but it does not look like that ever happened. However, Council minutes were recorded for the year 2024 (see attached).

Thank you & God Bless.

--

Kindest Regards,

Adina Flores

---

When applying for OBAG 3 grant funds, the City of Healdsburg stated: The Grove Street neighborhood lies in the City’s most disadvantaged neighborhood, meeting the ATP criteria based on median household income, with 61% of residents identified as Latinx or Hispanic.

I found this statement contradictory being that Ms. Kelley’s Grove St. residence appears to be worth approximately $5.2M.

According to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC): a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision.

Real property in which the official has an interest of $2,000 or more including leaseholds is considered a disqualifying financial interest.

An official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision. When appearing before his or her own agency or an agency subject to the authority or budgetary control of his or her agency, an official is making, participating in making, or using his or her position to influence a decision any time the official takes any action to influence the decision including directing a decision, voting, providing information or a recommendation, or contacting or appearing before any other agency official. When appearing before any other agency, the official must not act or purport to act in his or her official capacity or on behalf of his or her agency.

Certain officials (including city council members, planning commissioners, and members of the boards of supervisors) have a mandated manner in which they must disqualify from decisions made at a public meeting (including closed session decisions) and must publicly identify a conflict of interest and leave the room before the item is discussed.

Councilwoman Kelley previously decided my race, my knowledge of the City of Healdsburg (as a lifetime Sonoma County Resident), that I was fired from Santa Rosa City Schools, and that she is a ‘volunteer’ for ‘public service’ who receives a measly $150 stipend. Due to her continual lies, I beg to differ, as she is more accurately described as a member of the Jewish Synagogue of Satan.

Because they did not respond to my media request, should the City of Healdsburg provide comments, I will publish them when made available.

Related Articles