The Measure R Oversight Committee told the Santa Paula City Council at a budget workshop that the city’s Measure R revenue should be directed primarily to streets and pothole repair, and that homelessness support requested for the Spirit Homeless Shelter should not be paid from Measure R funds.

Cheryl Manzon, chair of the Measure R Oversight Committee, presented the committee’s review and said the group matched the ballot language and survey priorities against project requests in the draft two‑year budget. “We do feel that it is an important initiative for us, an initiative as the city. However, we did not feel that this was something that fell under the mandate of the Measure R,” Manzon said.

The committee’s analysis showed roughly 60% of proposed Measure R spending as streets and pothole work; when combined with sidewalk funding and a proposed reassignment of traffic‑safety items into that category, committee slides showed about 62% directed to street‑related work and under 1% remaining in general government if homelessness requests were removed. The oversight panel recommended lumping traffic safety into the streets category to avoid “confusion” and to increase the share clearly tied to ballot language.

Staff told the council their draft budget had treated homelessness as a high priority based on survey responses and therefore included a $200,000 contribution for Spirit plus portions of two city staff positions. “What staff did in crafting the budget … is identify what it believed were Measure R priorities, inclusive of all the feedback that was provided in the Measure R surveys,” a staff member said during the discussion. The staff presentation noted the budget originally included $200,000 for the shelter and “a portion” of two positions — the housing management analyst and a special enforcement unit officer — as Measure R‑funded items.

Council members pressed for clarity on how much of those positions’ time would be charged to Measure R. Staff answered that roughly 70% of the special enforcement officer’s time was identified for Measure R funding and that the management analyst’s duties fluctuate but were estimated to be about half devoted to homelessness work. Police leadership described the enforcement officer allocation as giving an everyday response capability beyond the current liaison attached to patrol.

The committee also called out other gaps: it said staff had not submitted project requests for some ballot‑listed priorities (the committee listed sinkholes, storm drains, drinking water and youth programs as missing), and it urged future consideration of traffic lighting as part of traffic‑safety work. The oversight committee pointed to an anticipated acceleration of capital improvement projects due to Measure R revenues but noted staff cost increases to reflect inflation.

Council members and the committee discussed alternatives for covering homelessness services, including using Measure T or one‑time funds. Vice Mayor Juarez said sidewalks warrant a larger share of funding than shown in staff materials, noting sidewalks were part of the ballot language; she observed sidewalks were only 2% in the committee’s chart and urged shifting some resources.

Next steps: council members asked staff to return with the Measure T presentation and asked staff and committee members to follow up on whether Measure T or other sources could cover shelter operating support and the city’s homeless‑related staffing costs. The council did not take any formal vote on Measure R allocations during the workshop.