Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Measure G oversight committee reviews unaudited FY24–25 quarter‑4 financials; staff briefs on projects and staffing

5499789 · July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City finance staff presented the Measure G FY24–25 quarter‑4 unaudited financial report, highlighting $29.4 million in Measure G‑funded capital projects, program spending rates and staffing questions for code enforcement, police and fire.

City finance staff presented the Measure G fiscal year 2024–25 quarter‑4 financial report at the Measure G Oversight Committee meeting on July 24, 2025, and answered committee questions about project spending, staffing and timelines.

Selena Andrews, finance director, and A. Pedroza, assistant finance director, told the committee the numbers in the presentation are unaudited and reflect activity through June 30 (reimbursements and final payroll may post later). Staff reported Measure G funds are financing 37 capital projects with a total budget of $29,400,000 and that Measure G capital projects are 62% spent or encumbered; overall city Measure G spending was reported at 64% of budget as of June 30. Finance staff said capital-project reimbursements are reported with a one‑month lag and that unspent capital funds will be carried over to the next fiscal year.

Staff listed several projects funded in whole or part by Measure G: the Chinatown Navigation Center Sprung Shelter (operations and case management), the Lower State Street/Laboratory (LSL) vibrancy plan, Cesar Chavez Park soccer field (construction complete and anticipated for council acceptance in August), a street preventative‑maintenance program covering about 16 roadway segments (approximately 23 lane miles) and multiple playground repairs and installations. Staff noted some projects use a mix of Measure E, Measure G and ARPA funds.

Committee members pressed staff on how Measure G funds for personnel are handled when positions are vacant. Finance staff said funds for vacant positions remain in the Measure G fund balance for that fiscal year and revert to the fund balance if positions are not filled. The committee noted that code‑enforcement staffing was shown as 10 positions funded by Measure G with two vacancies; staff confirmed the vacancies had been posted.

Committee members asked for clarification about police staffing and Measure G funding. A committee member recalled a prior report that Measure G funded 106.5 positions citywide, including 29 police positions; staff said they would double‑check that accounting. Salinas Police Chief Acosta said the police department is authorized and funded for 157 positions, has 144 filled positions at present, with seven officers in the academy and roughly 9–12 officers out on leave for injury or other reasons. Chief Acosta said the department has hired seven lateral officers since his November 2024 appointment and described ongoing recruiting efforts; he characterized Measure G funding as helpful to the department but cited recruitment and attrition as constraints on filling funded positions.

Regarding fire staffing, the fire chief told the committee that data on call volume and response times support adding staffed units; the chief cited three captain, three engineer and three firefighter positions (nine total) as needed to staff an additional engine and noted the department previously obtained a SAFER grant of $4,600,000 that supported hiring and over‑hires.

On the District 5 recreation center feasibility study, staff said outreach and a first phase of public input are complete; consultants are preparing conceptual designs, and staff anticipate completing the feasibility study by the end of the year. Staff estimated that design and procurement would follow and that the earliest construction could occur is on a multi‑year timeline (staff said design and delivery make a three‑year earliest estimate plausible, depending on the building type and procurement).

Public‑works staff said pavement projects are distributed by council direction and by project clustering to reduce contractor travel; they did not provide a district‑by‑district multi‑year listing at the meeting. Public works confirmed Measure G funded 66 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps at corners noted in the presentation; staff did not provide a total citywide need figure at the meeting.

No formal action was required on the financial report item. The committee later approved consent minutes from April 17, 2025, by roll‑call vote.