[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6473973,"mediaKeyId","5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26","parentId",5742806,"title","Salinas council orders rebid of Sherwood Recreation Center contract after labor-compliance concerns; redirects CDBG funds to cover cost gap","audioSeconds",2623,"startMs",5176000,"endMs",7799000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26&start=5176&end=7799","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26/thumbnail_5176000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6473973/Salinas/Monterey-County/California/Salinas-council-orders-rebid-of-Sherwood-Recreation-Center-contract-after-labor-compliance-concerns-redirects-CDBG-funds-to-cover-cost-gap","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473973-468a48eb0544e59a2918acd3460febb3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176059&Signature=BlemyzjKsuSsVTb50cEkK9zItocQAMl0DYehhovGTryn9Zt1umUk4aSLszKdNv7Ym3XtoTGSkk~Lf0Tp72b3cvlcMXsQGs3L2PFRojHSKxVZQylZZ9ofHSBdDzFuW2WbsLLAWx0ZW5C3bUtrTqzFN839O4X7Y8IHJAtnDs1FpD0Abr1crwbXUGfE6xfHRKvPCi4KKmD5UejtQytmtN2Ux3k8MrunDD0Sd7Qu8GeNg0DiZuR4aYkX57h89rNGtrgjswFW3~U0Z7oh9xPQsxXvm32s2oFghebPVdzoODDB-EOMQ8tF5lXEqhbM0qz7HPIjBTjMz3Z0iCRmNtzyqjgnIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Salinas","date","2025-09-10T05:28:53Z","article","The Salinas City Council voted Sept. 9 to reject awarding the construction contract for the Sherwood Recreation Center building improvements and directed staff to put the project back out to bid after labor-compliance concerns were raised about a subcontractor associated with the apparent low bidder.

The rebid direction followed a staff recommendation to award the contract to Auto Construction, the apparent lowest responsive bidder, for an amount not to exceed $2,686,900. Public-works staff told the council Auto Construction’s bid was about $88,000 below the engineer’s estimate and roughly $180,000 below the second-place bidder, and that the company had satisfied license and registration checks required under the city’s municipal code and the California Public Contract Code.

Council members and members of the public pressed staff and the city attorney for additional detail after labor advocates and several construction workers testified that a subcontractor, identified in public comment as B & M, had prior wage-and-hour violations and had not fully resolved related complaints in other jurisdictions. Council members asked whether those past problems should disqualify Auto Construction as a “responsible” bidder. The city attorney pointed to the responsibility criteria in the city’s municipal code (section 12‑23) and said staff had checked contractor license board and Department of Industrial Relations listings and found no active debarments or suspensions for Auto Construction.

Staff also described the city’s existing labor‑compliance tools: a city labor‑compliance officer, monthly certified‑payroll review tied to contractor payment, and the ability to withhold payment when certified payrolls are missing or show violations. City staff told the council the Auto Construction prime had provided a written commitment to oversee its subcontractors and to enforce labor compliance on the project.

Despite those assurances, several council members said they remained concerned about enforcement in the field. Labor representatives and a number of speakers at the council meeting said promises on paper had not prevented wage theft in other public projects and that workers were often afraid to complain. Contractors and some property managers pushed back in public comment, warning a rebid could cost the city more money and delay a project they described as long‑overdue.

After debate, Council Member Gloria De La Rosa moved to reject all bids and direct staff to rebid the Sherwood Recreation Center building improvements project; the motion passed on the council floor. Council discussion also noted that the project has been active for several years—city staff said work on the facility dates back to 2015 and that the city has spent roughly $8 million–$10 million to date on prior phases. Staff said the current contract would complete ADA and roof/window work identified after earlier phases.

Funding and federal rules: staff advised the council the project is funded in part with federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars, which limits the city’s ability to impose local hiring preferences. City staff said federal requirements preclude adding local‑hire mandates on projects that use CDBG funds, and the city would instead rely on contractors’ outreach and the usual certified‑payroll enforcement. Council members asked how the city could still promote local hiring; staff said the only practical options would be (a) to decline the federal funds and look for a different funding source or (b) structure future procurements differently.

CDBG amendment approved: separately but related to Sherwood funding needs, the council later approved a substantial amendment to the FY 2023–24 CDBG annual action plan to redirect $595,000 to the Sherwood Recreation Center project. Of that amount, $550,000 was reallocated from the Republic Café/Chinatown building project and $45,000 from unspent public‑service funds for tenant/landlord assistance in 2023–24. Staff told the council the Republic Café site is still in pre‑development and that moving money to a project ready for construction would help maintain the city’s overall CDBG timeliness ratio. The amendment passed on a recorded vote.

What the council did and what comes next: the council’s formal action rejected staff’s recommendation to award to Auto Construction and instructed staff to rebid the Sherwood project. Staff said rebidding will require re‑advertising the plans and specifications and that the city would continue its labor‑compliance oversight on any future contract. Because bids came in below some estimates, staff warned rebidding could result in higher prices; at least one council member explicitly noted that rebidding may risk increased costs and said that if council members were uncomfortable with the recommended award, the safer course was to rebid.

Why this matters: the Sherwood Recreation Center improvements have been a multi‑phase effort to repair an aging facility used by seniors, youth and families. The project has drawn scrutiny because (1) it is federally funded, which limits local preferences; (2) it touches on broader local debates about labor standards, wage theft and enforcement; and (3) the city has sought to complete years‑long upgrades without further delay.

Council and staff contacts: the staff presentation and the council’s public discussion cite the municipal code procurement rules and the California Public Contract Code as the governing procurement authority; the city attorney also referenced municipal code section 12‑23 in explaining responsibility determinations.

Pending and follow‑up items: staff will rebid the Sherwood Recreation Center project, continue labor‑compliance monitoring, and return to council with procurement results. The city’s CDBG office will also manage the reallocation approved Sept. 9 and continue tracking the city’s timeliness ratio for federal grant compliance.

Speakers and public records: staff’s memo, bid tabulations, contractor correspondence and the public meeting record— including letters from labor organizations and contractor responses—are part of the project file in the public works division.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","LIVE COVERAGE Salinas City Council Meeting of September 09, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Salinas City Council voted Sept. 9 to reject awarding the construction contract for the Sherwood Recreation Center building improvements and directed staff to rebid the project after concerns surfaced about prior labor violations by a listed subcontractor.","taxTitle","Salinas, Monterey County, California","taxId",4681,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6473964,"Salinas accepts Cities for Financial Empowerment planning grant to design no‑cost counseling center for residents",1448,18556000,20004000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26&start=18556&end=20004","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26/thumbnail_18556000.jpg","/articles/6473964/Salinas/Monterey-County/California/Salinas-accepts-Cities-for-Financial-Empowerment-planning-grant-to-design-nocost-counseling-center-for-residents","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473964-9d75718959a4c506095efbf5e565336f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176059&Signature=Ar4Nv8AVf9RwapsQu2tKquQXt5-at24KI6CBiBf7zgEyOZQt1q6xrU~z5JIRVnAFyHIuG1Nn29tihSqmYQpJu5RM~TC-1ht6Omv55ogxPYTsJKO~NrKoosr-WNTRNnuX5LG3v1W5lt00aFTU5-u2ywm1MYQcFTBSqogL3Yib0-49uhJzML0OrIHz2ni0IajQ1NmIirX9WDtmnJ6r5M7i5v6QnRBQ0kx5RSFElrVHogLgPZ5hTaKXgQUyUKRgwXRvlDrX6YYwov-KZEfl0Y4coDp~3ZPKbouicADiyB-kjk8qI7flSrG7GwARQlSTsvoxgc91TbvTdfKQjJjdnokq9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Salinas City Council unanimously approved acceptance of a $20,000 planning grant from the Cities for Financial Empowerment (CFE) Fund to develop a locally led Financial Empowerment Center (FEC), a program model that offers professional, individualized financial counseling to residents as a free public service.

What the program is: CFE Fund representatives described the FEC model as a municipally led service delivered by a local nonprofit contractor. Counselors meet one‑on‑one with residents to address personal finance issues such as banking access, debt reduction, credit building, budgeting, savings and legacy planning. The model emphasizes no‑fee counseling, data tracking through a standardized database and municipal branding to establish public trust. CFE Fund noted national program results, including median client savings and debt reductions from other jurisdictions.

Staffing and timeline: Under the proposed structure the city would run a public request for proposals to select a nonprofit partner who would hire a program manager and two or more full‑time financial counselors. Staff described an expected 15–18 month planning period, with CFE Fund offering technical assistance during the planning phase and potential implementation support (CFE provides $150,000 in implementation funding across the first two years for qualifying jurisdictions). Salinas staff said they had identified preliminary funding (including a small CDBG allocation for planning) and would convene a funders’ roundtable as part of the sustainability planning.

Performance and metrics: CFE Fund staff shared national program metrics from operating centers: median savings increases around $1,400 per client, median debt reduction of approximately $2,400, and median credit‑score improvements in the range of 30+ points for clients who complete counseling. The FEC database tracks client‑level outcomes and will be available to the city for reporting and performance management.

Why the city is pursuing the program: City staff framed the FEC as an element of a broader affordability and economic‑stability strategy, helping residents prepare for housing opportunities, reduce predatory financial arrangements, and increase household resilience. City leaders said the municipal brand and a city‑run program could expand access for residents who otherwise would avoid commercial counseling products.

Council action and next steps: the council accepted the $20,000 planning allocation and authorized staff to continue grant and local funding work, proceed with community outreach and prepare an RFP for a nonprofit operator. Staff will return with a proposed implementation plan, a funding strategy, and an RFP timeline to begin procurement.

Why this matters: a city‑branded, no‑cost financial counseling program can fill gaps in banking access, support renters and prospective homeowners, and provide measurable household‑level outcomes that help stabilize families and reduce long‑term social‑service costs.

Contacts and follow‑up: staff and CFE Fund representatives said they will convene local partners—including United Way, community organizations and local funders—during the planning phase. The city will return to council with recommended funding and an RFP schedule.","The City of Salinas accepted a $20,000 planning grant from the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund to complete feasibility and planning work for a municipal Financial Empowerment Center that will provide no‑cost, individualized financial counseling to residents. Staff will continue fundraising and return with an implementation plan.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6473969,"Salinas council delays final action on rent‑ordinance referendum, gives stakeholders two weeks to continue talks",9666,8014000,17680000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26&start=8014&end=17680","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742806-67a7a2590d9b20b0efebc30477a21d26/thumbnail_8014000.jpg","/articles/6473969/Salinas/Monterey-County/California/Salinas-council-delays-final-action-on-rentordinance-referendum-gives-stakeholders-two-weeks-to-continue-talks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473969-a677215cf5242c97b002b8637e682baf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176059&Signature=AU6JavsVhvsnBepxutp0gRfr9uQTA1FG~P96rZH~psjFXiY-FbU7jyV3jZ~4QLK5A7jP8s1kTQRqhTEybdcCI-bQ25sORqSKSfmkIG6k7DuZmS29Tg-kw80T3~3rhbovn8K4SXgW6Ccnwdm9fKYZfE0s9T~k1y-CfuFV11JlMo-u4158YMgNLLOHp6ZmmnYZmsY-d83yLzlxPNe6oVesjGnedvoGmZ7mMLa6iYSb5~Qus~r67mSJcdWcsss5b4hQuhKLKJqA4m0HBxxQpdcGy8YFNgIZ6OV4pt~8Ch-lUluVUnuAWtN4xd8qVjwnK-CW6iByE1Rg91Xoa2lVrhrDUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Salinas City Council on Sept. 9 voted to postpone a final determination on a citizens’ referendum that challenges the council’s repeal of rent‑related ordinances. Instead of immediately sending the question to voters or unilaterally repealing the repeal ordinance, the council gave two weeks for the stakeholder groups who have been meeting to continue negotiating and return with an update at a Sept. 23 meeting.

Background and legal choices: the action before the council stemmed from a referendum petition filed by Protect Salinas Renters that qualified after the Monterey County Registrar certified signatures. The referendum challenges the council’s earlier action to repeal a so‑called “repeal ordinance” that had suspended four rent‑related ordinances the council had adopted earlier in the year. The city clerk reminded the council that, under the Elections Code and the city’s processes, council options were to (a) repeal the repeal ordinance, thereby leaving the four rent ordinances in force; or (b) submit the repeal ordinance to the voters at a regular municipal election or a special election in accordance with legal timelines.

Cost estimates and timing: the city clerk presented cost estimates prepared for the council. A consolidated November 2026 general election would be the least expensive route for a public vote, estimated at about $494,000–$706,350 based on the city’s 70,635 registered voters. By contrast, a standalone special election would cost substantially more—between roughly $1.13 million and $1.70 million—because it would not share consolidated county election infrastructure. Several council members voiced concern about spending that level of city funds, given other budget priorities.

Public testimony and cross‑pollinated negotiation: more than 100 speakers participated in public comment. Protect Salinas Renters organizers and allied community groups urged the council to “repeal the repeal” and keep the rent‑stabilization, tenant anti‑harassment, rental‑registration and just‑cause eviction ordinances in place. Speakers described housing displacement, high rents and the importance of tenant protections; several youth and nonprofit leaders urged the council to prioritize stability for renters.

The Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce and a separate landlord/property‑management coalition also addressed the council. Chamber representatives and many property owners said the ordinances hurt housing providers, may suppress investment, and in many cases impose burdensome administrative requirements. A small‑owner coalition asked that any changes be done through a public, collaborative process; the Chamber offered to convene landlord and renter representatives for talks. The council appointed the Chamber and a tenant‑led group as conveners to begin discussions earlier in September; the council asked those groups to continue their work and report progress.

Council action and next steps: after extended debate, the council voted to continue consideration of whether to repeal the repeal ordinance or to submit it to the voters until the Sept. 23 council meeting. On that date the council must take a final legislative action — either formally repealing the repeal ordinance (which could be done immediately if unanimous) or formally ordering the matter to the voters. The city attorney reminded the council that a repeal ordinance would not take effect until 30 days after adoption. The attorney also noted limits in the Elections Code and case law, including a 12‑month restriction on council‑initiated repeals of the same measure; that restriction means the council could not simply pass another repeal within the coming year.

What’s at stake: the referendum centers on four interlocking ordinances the council adopted earlier in the year: rent stabilization, a residential rental registry, tenant protection/just‑cause eviction and a tenant anti‑harassment rule. If the referendum is submitted and voters reject the repeal ordinance, the original four ordinances would remain in effect; if voters approve the repeal ordinance, the four ordinances would not take effect. The public debate has also highlighted tension between rapid ballot resolution and the city’s desire for a negotiated, locally driven compromise.

Why the council delayed: members who voted for the two‑week delay said they wanted to provide the community a final, practical chance to reach negotiated adjustments without the immediate expense of a special election—and because some stakeholders had already begun structured conversations. Other council members said they supported placing the question on the ballot so the full electorate could decide. The delay does not remove the referendum option; it simply postpones the council’s formal decision for two weeks to allow further stakeholder work.

Costs, transparency and next meeting: the city clerk’s office reminded the council that any special election held before fiscal year close could strain the city’s contingency funds. The clerk also noted that 7,000+ signatures had been confirmed by the county registrar. The council asked staff to prepare for both paths – a repeal ordinance to adopt or materials to place the repeal before voters – and to return Sept. 23 with the stakeholders’ update and any proposed scheduling, ballot‑language or budget recommendations.

Speakers and documents: the petition and the county verification certificate are part of the public record. The city clerk and city attorney provided the council with options, cost ranges, and a staff‑prepared draft ordinance that would repeal the repeal ordinance if the council chooses that path.","After months of public campaigning, signatures verified by the county and more than three hours of public testimony, the Salinas City Council voted to continue its formal decision on a referendum about rent‑related ordinances to Sept. 23, citing a chance for stakeholders to resume talks rather than immediately holding an expensive election.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Salinas council orders rebid of Sherwood Recreation Center contract after labor-compliance concerns; redirects CDBG funds to cover cost gap

Salinas accepts Cities for Financial Empowerment planning grant to design no‑cost counseling center for residents

Salinas council delays final action on rent‑ordinance referendum, gives stakeholders two weeks to continue talks