Salinas presentation: homelessness programs rely on expiring grants; city urged to decide which services to sustain

Community Development Director Yeraline Hernandez told a mock Salinas City Council on July 25 that homelessness “is a growing challenge affecting individuals, families, and our community as a whole,” and that the city’s response programs are “heavily dependent upon grant funding.”

Hernandez said Salinas is home to 50% of Monterey County’s homeless population and presented program-level spending and capacity figures as staff urged the council to provide direction on which services to continue when grants expire. “With grant funding running out on most of the programs and services, the city will need to determine what programs and services it would like to continue and to identify a funding source,” she said.

The presentation laid out the city’s current homelessness portfolio and recommended next steps. Hernandez listed fiscal-year expenditures by category: $20,200,000 for emergency shelter; $15,100,000 for homeless prevention; $3,600,000 for rapid rehousing; $8,900,000 for street outreach; $7,900,000 for housing acquisition; and $1,900,000 for administration. She said the city’s permanent supportive-housing stock includes motel conversions and small homes — naming Salinas Inn, Sanborn Inn, Goodnight Inn and El Rey Motel — and reported a total of 222 permanent housing units to date.

Staff recommendations and constraints

Hernandez said staff does not recommend continued city operations funding for the Chinatown Navigation Center but recommended pursuing alternate grant funding or shifting funds to maintain operations through fiscal year 2026–27 while a transition plan is developed. She said the Chinatown Navigation Center served approximately 753 individuals and noted the center’s FY25–26 operating cost cited during council discussion ($1,540,000). For other assets purchased by the city, staff recommended turning single-family homes over to nonprofit providers and seeking nonprofit operators for the El Rey Motel to ensure long-term sustainability.

Council members pressed staff for details on funding and outcomes. Council member Garnica asked how the city would maintain services “prior to, during, and after fiscal year 26–27” if grant revenue declines. Hernandez said the city should maximize existing funds, invest in evidence-based “housing first” and wraparound services, pursue state and federal funding, explore local revenue options and engage philanthropic partners. Council member Medeiros asked when results could be expected; Hernandez said early results could appear in 12 to 18 months with longer-term impacts in three to five years.

Council member Martinez questioned the proposed reduction to Chinatown Navigation Center funding given the center’s caseload and cost per person served. Hernandez said the recommendation was based on operational cost-efficiency and outcome metrics and stressed that any phase-out would be contingent on a community impact assessment and a transitional plan to avoid gaps in service.

Public comments: youth and residents urge more shelters, jobs, mental-health and oversight

Several youth participants and residents spoke during the public-comment period focused on homelessness. Ivan, a District 5 resident, said, “the city is not doing enough to fix this issue” and called for more shelters and jobs. Esquipulas Orozco Savala asked the council to “commit to public quarterly updates on spending outcomes, like how many people were housed versus how many people remain on the streets, and the success rate of our response teams.” Other commenters proposed a designated recreation center for people experiencing homelessness, expanded rapid rehousing and job training, more mental-health services and better coordination among providers. One resident, Monica Sardina, described repeated workplace thefts she interpreted as driven by unmet basic needs and urged more support for people without housing.

No action taken; staff seeking direction

Because the session was a Youth and Government Institute mock council meeting, the presentation was received and no formal council action was taken. Hernandez and other staff identified items for council direction, including whether to continue funding the Downtown Streets Team and the Mobile Crisis Response program into fiscal year 2026–27 and how to sustain rapid-rehousing and shelter operations as one-time grant funds expire. The presentation flagged a broader funding question: how to replace diminishing grant revenue with stable local, state or federal support or public–private partnerships.

Next steps noted by staff included conducting community impact assessments before program reductions, pursuing additional grant opportunities, exploring nonprofit operators for city-owned housing assets and returning to the council for direction on which programs to prioritize for ongoing funding.