Measure G oversight committee reviews Q3 finances, requests clearer Measure G breakdowns

The Salinas Measure G Oversight Committee reviewed the city’s unaudited third-quarter fiscal report for fiscal year 2024–25 and pressed staff for clearer, public-facing breakdowns of what Measure G pays for at its April 17 meeting.

Acting Assistant Finance Director A. Pedroza presented the Measure G fiscal year 2024–25 quarter-three financial report as of March 31 and said the figures are unaudited. Pedroza reported that transactions-and-use-tax receipts were at 59% of budget for the year-to-date and that overall revenues were at 61%; by the seven-out-of-12-month benchmark the city’s receipts were slightly ahead of pace (benchmark: 58%). He told the committee that investment earnings were trending above the adopted budget and that department spending (administration, human resources, finance, community development, police, fire, and public works) was at or under budget through the first nine months of the fiscal year. Before transfers, Measure G spending was 71% of the annual budget as of March 31.

Pedroza said the capital improvement program (CIP) budget tied to Measure G totals $23,700,000 across 36 projects and reflected carryover plus appropriations. The CIP figures were reported with a one-month lag (to Feb. 28) and were 68% expended or encumbered citywide. Pedroza identified several active projects funded in whole or in part by Measure G, including the Chinatown navigation center (sprung shelter), a vibrancy plan for a commercial corridor, fire station renovations, an industrial waste treatment facility, flood repairs, Baranda Road work and the street preventive maintenance program. He also reviewed reserve balances: the 115 trust reserve at $2,700,000, the economic contingency reserve at $3,700,000, and the infrastructure maintenance reserve at $900,000. Pedroza said the District 5 community center reserve had been reduced to zero from $1,200,000 because of an offsetting appropriation to CIP 9342 per March 2025 City Council action.

Committee members and a member of the public pushed for more accessible, Measure G–specific materials. Luis Chago Juarez, neighborhood organizer for Building Healthy Communities, said during general public comment that residents want clearer information and praised the committee’s outreach. Multiple committee members urged staff to “humanize” the numbers — for example, showing how Measure G ties to service levels and staffed positions — and asked for a query or summary that highlights which line items and positions are funded by Measure G. A committee member cited a staff figure that 106.9 positions are funded by Measure G and asked for confirmation and detail on which positions and which other funds (for example the general fund) supplement particular services such as the aquatic center. The full operating cost and the portion funded outside Measure G were not specified during the meeting.

Selena Anders, the city finance director, told the committee the city works with a financial adviser and that current investment holdings are structured under the city’s investment policy and California Government Code requirements, and “we are not being impacted currently because of the way we invest.” Anders said the quarterly numbers reflect activity through March 31 and cautioned that market fluctuations could change investment earnings in future quarters.

On the independent audit report, committee members discussed a previously created subcommittee to review the 2024 independent audit and prepare a public report to the City Council. City staff told the committee the public report from the subcommittee is due by May 30; the committee will not vote to accept the audit until the subcommittee provides that public report. Committee members discussed expanding the subcommittee beyond three members, noted quorum constraints and asked staff to confirm any legal requirements for forming or expanding the ad hoc group.

Procedural items: the committee held a roll call at the start of the meeting and later moved the consent agenda. The minutes from the Jan. 16, 2025 meeting were moved and seconded and approved by roll call (Committee Member Caballero: yes; Committee Member Salinas: yes; Committee Member Sandoval: yes; Chair Pierce declined to vote because she had not reviewed the minutes; motion recorded as passed). Staff said the independent audit documents are posted on the city website and that members can request condensed, Measure G–specific extracts or additional one-on-one briefings with finance staff.

The committee closed the financial-report discussion with no formal action required on the quarterly report and directed staff to provide more Measure G–specific detail in future quarterly materials and to coordinate with interested committee members for follow-up review and subcommittee work on the audit-public-report deliverable.

Looking ahead, staff reiterated that the city’s draft budget timeline includes a budget study session May 27 and council adoption on June 17; committee members were encouraged to raise any budget recommendations publicly and to coordinate with their council members before those dates.