Measure G oversight committee elects leaders, reviews year-end finances and staffing gaps

The Measure G Oversight Committee for the City of Salinas elected Jacob Sandoval as chair and Jordan Caballero as vice chair, reviewed unaudited fiscal-year-end Measure G financials and capital project updates, and discussed staffing shortfalls in police and fire ranks during its July 24, 2025 meeting.

The committee was told the city’s independent 2024 audit has been completed by staff but may not be ready for this committee’s approval until the next meeting. Selena Andrews, finance director, said staff provided a draft to a subcommittee earlier this year and delivered a final report to the subcommittee in April; she cautioned that the audit “may not be ready today” and could be presented at a later meeting.

Committee members heard a detailed quarter‑4 financial presentation for the Measure G fund. A. Pedroso, assistant finance director, said the city had received roughly 84% of transactions-and-use tax revenue and 85% of total anticipated revenue through April (the report reflects July–April receipts), and noted that investment earnings were running ahead of budget and had been used to adjust FY 2025–26 projections. As of June 30, staff reported Measure G operating spending at about 90% of department budgets before transfers and 64% of the total Measure G budget overall; capital projects were lower, with Measure G capital improvement projects (CIPs) shown as 62% spent or encumbered.

The report identified 37 CIP projects with Measure G funding totaling $29,400,000 and named several specific projects: the Chinatown Navigation Centre Sprung Shelter to support case management and shelter operations; the LSL Vibrancy Plan to guide parks, open space and economic development in the LSL area; Cesar Chavez Park soccer field (anticipated to go to council acceptance in August); a street preventative maintenance program covering approximately 23 lane miles across 16 roadway segments; playground repairs and four new playgrounds installed; and a District 5 recreation center feasibility study expected to conclude in the October–November timeframe.

Committee members pressed staff on staffing and vacancy details for programs supported by Measure G. In response to questions, Andrews confirmed that Measure G funds all 10 positions in the city’s code enforcement division and that unfilled positions remain in the fund balance for the year and revert to the originating fund balance if not filled. When asked whether a recent $335,000 increase in the code enforcement contract came from Measure G, Andrews said she would “double check on that” and that some of the funding had been included in prior-year budgets.

Police staffing was a major line of questioning. Committee members were told Measure G funds a total of 157 authorized police positions; Police Chief Acosta said the department currently is funded for 157 positions but has 144 filled. Of those 144, Chief Acosta said, seven officers are currently in the police academy and “approximately 9 to 12 officers” are out on leave for injuries, family leave or other reasons. Chief Acosta said the department has hired seven lateral officers since his November appointment and is pursuing multiple recruitment efforts, but said it will take time to rebuild staffing levels.

The committee discussed fire staffing needs as well. The Fire Chief said data showing rising call volumes supports adding staffed apparatus and that the department anticipates staffing needs sufficient to justify a Fire Station 7 (and possibly Fire Station 8). The chief outlined a package of nine additional positions — three captains, three engineers and three firefighters — as the staffing needed to place another engine in service. The committee was reminded the department previously obtained a $4.6 million SAFER grant that funded nine firefighter hires and that the city also over‑hires at times to maintain staffing through attrition and leaves.

Members also asked about the District 5 recreation center feasibility study for Northgate Park. Kristen Lundquist, library and community services director, said the study has completed a first phase of outreach (surveys, a meeting and pop‑up events) and that consultants are preparing conceptual designs and high‑level cost estimates; the study is expected to be finished by the end of the year. Public‑facing construction could take much longer: staff estimated design, bidding and construction could take 18 months to three years after the feasibility phase, depending on the chosen building type and procurement approach.

Public works staff described the street preventative maintenance approach: projects are grouped geographically to limit contractor travel and reduce costs. The maintenance project awarded in June will address 16 roadway segments and roughly 23 lane miles, with work including crack treatment, asphalt patching, overlays and full-depth reclamation. When asked about ADA ramps, public works staff said they could not confirm the total need citywide but that 66 ramps were funded by Measure G for the corners referenced in the staff report.

Committee members also received program-level details on transfers and reserves: staff noted transfers out to a local housing trust fund and transfers to fund debt service (mainly the police services building). Internal service fund transfers (property insurance, fleet maintenance and vehicle replacement, general liability) were reported at 100% for the period. Staff emphasized that remaining capital project funds would be carried over to the next fiscal year.

Votes at a glance: the committee held two roll-call votes on appointments and one on minutes. In roll call, members Caballero, Field, Noroyan, Sandoval and Salai voted to elect Sandoval chair; the same membership voted to elect Caballero vice chair. A motion to approve minutes of the April 17, 2025 meeting was made by Committee Member Caballero and seconded by Committee Member Noroyan; the minutes were approved on a roll-call vote with all present members voting yes. No other formal actions or policy decisions were taken at this meeting.

Committee members closed with general remarks thanking staff for the clearer, more detailed reporting format and raising broader questions about how Measure G funding is prioritized among competing “have-to-have” and “nice-to-have” needs before the measure sunsets in 2030. No public comments were received during the meeting, and staff noted that the independent 2024 audit will be presented to the committee when it is ready.