Assistant Finance Director A. Pedroza presented the Measure G fiscal-year 2025–26 financial report to the Measure G Oversight Committee on Sept. 30, saying the figures were unaudited and that the city is “right on pace” for early-year sales-tax receipts.

Measure G is a 1-cent general transaction and use tax approved by Salinas voters in February 2014. Pedroza told the committee it is projected to generate $34,500,000 in revenue for FY 2025–26 and currently supports 106.5 full‑time equivalent positions across public works, police, recreation, community development, fire, finance, information technology, human resources and administration. “Please note that the numbers are unaudited,” Pedroza said.

The presentation showed early-year revenue recognition at about 8 percent of the annual forecast — consistent with receiving one month of state remittances — and that, before transfers, Measure G spending was 19 percent of the budgeted amount as of Sept. 30. After accounting for non-departmental items and timing differences, overall Measure G spending for the city was reported at 11 percent of budget. Pedroza said some department variances reflect timing and encumbrances: fire was at 18 percent and public works at 16 percent; the recreation aquatic center appeared over budget because of an encumbrance for a contract to manage pool operations; administration showed 52 percent spent because an employee’s salary had been incorrectly charged to Measure G and is being corrected.

Capital project accounting was not complete for the first quarter. Pedroza said the city’s capital-improvement reimbursement allocation (assigning project expenditures to funding sources) had not been finished as part of the year‑end close process and that updated CIP spending figures would be presented at the committee’s January meeting covering the first six months of the fiscal year. The FY 2025–26 CIP list cited 30 projects totaling $16,000,000, including the Alisal Vibrancy Plan, fire station renovations, the District 5 recreation center, Bridal Road congestion relief and slurry-seal improvements.

City Manager Renee Mendez answered committee questions about measuring the program’s effectiveness, saying the city has tracked department activity but has not yet fully correlated outcomes to Measure G spending. “One of the things the council has asked us to do, is how do we set up more sort of performance measures?” Mendez said. She added the city’s fire and police departments are tracking operational metrics such as response times and crime statistics, and staff want to work with the committee to develop clearer performance reporting the public can understand.

Committee members pressed staff for greater transparency and suggested different approaches to packaging the tax if it is placed before voters again. A recurring comment urged narrowing the public-facing description of Measure G to a concise list of core services—such as “police, fire, streets, sidewalks”—to improve voter appeal, while other members said Measure G’s general‑purpose wording gives needed flexibility as community needs change. Mendez cautioned that campaign activity would be run by independent committees if the council places a measure on the ballot and that the city must be careful about how it presents information.

Members also asked for specifics about programs and contracts funded by Measure G. Community Development Director Lisa Brinton said the code-enforcement operating budget is $1,800,000 and covers 10 employees plus a $300,000 contract with Willdan. “The $1,800,000 is the entire operating budget for our code enforcement division,” Brinton said. She said Willdan’s work will be expanded to address blight, abatement and nuisance health‑and‑safety enforcement and that the code-enforcement team is fully staffed as of the meeting; the department is piloting evening and weekend proactive enforcement assignments once a month.

On recreation, committee members asked about District 5’s planned facility and maintenance funding. Staff said Measure G is contributing $1,200,000 to the District 5 recreation center feasibility/design work while Measure E is budgeted for $6,900,000; city staff said the intent is to design a facility that can be built within an $8.1 million budget. Staff also confirmed Measure E and Measure G fund maintenance staff and contracted landscape mowing for parks such as Ensign Park.

Committee members raised long-term fiscal concerns because Measure G is a limited-time tax scheduled to expire in 2030. Pedroza’s presentation noted Measure G accounted for about 38 percent of the city’s sales-tax revenue and 19 percent of total general-fund revenue; staff said the city could face a potential annual revenue gap of more than $40,600,000 if the tax is not renewed. Several committee members recommended developing clearer materials—annual or end-of-year impact reports with data and illustrations—to demonstrate how Measure G dollars are spent and why a renewal might be needed.

The committee also discussed an independent audit report item that remains continued indefinitely because the city has not yet received the full independent-audit materials. Staff advised a committee member who said they had completed a draft independent audit report to share it with the finance director and the city attorney to determine the next steps. No further action was taken on the audit item at the meeting.

A two‑item consent agenda was approved by roll call. Committee members recorded votes as follows: Committee Member Caballero — yes; Committee Member Field — yes; Committee Member Salmina — yes; Committee Member Salai — yes; Chair Sandoval — yes.

No formal committee direction or new policy was adopted at the meeting. Staff said they will return with updated CIP expenditure figures in January and that they plan to work with the committee on designing clearer performance measures and public reporting for Measure G.