Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salinas midyear budget review: staff seeks $727,000 in supplemental appropriations; reserves at 12%
Summary
Finance staff presented the fiscal year 2024–25 midyear budget review on Feb. 11, recommending $727,000 in additional General Fund appropriations for items including a police forensics position, fire equipment and urban forestry, and noted the general fund reserve has been increased to 12%.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Feb. 11, 2025 — Finance Director Selena Andrews presented the City of Salinas’s fiscal year 2024–25 midyear budget review to the Finance Committee on Feb. 11 and recommended that the committee receive the report and consider supplemental appropriations that staff identified during the review.
Andrews told the committee that the midyear review is intended to pair down adjustments based on updated forecasts and departmental input. The staff recommendation includes $727,000 in additional General Fund appropriations for items identified through the midyear process, and Andrews said operating funds are "generally performing as expected" for the first half of the year.
Specific adjustments described in the presentation include adding a forensics specialist position in the Police Department; replacement furniture and increased plan-check capacity in Fire Administration; anticipated vehicle maintenance and fire hydrant repairs; new compliance and professional services costs in Public Works tied to the state organic-waste procurement requirement (SB 1383); and an increased contract for urban-forestry maintenance in medians and public landscaping. Staff also included a line for urgent program needs to cover unanticipated expenses through the fiscal year.
Andrews and staff noted that the city’s unassigned General Fund reserves have been increased to 12% of the General Fund. The presentation included out-year forecasts that show uncertainty and the staff’s treatment of Measure G in those scenarios — staff provided projections both with and without Measure G’s revenue, because Measure G is set to expire in 2030. Andrews said staff are projecting potential incremental revenue sources (including modeled "Amazon revenue" in the materials) but cautioned that those are forecasts, not guaranteed receipts.
Committee members asked follow-up questions about the composition of the $727,000 supplemental request and about SB 1383, the state requirement to procure organic waste products. Andrews said the supplemental "replenishes" an account staff holds for unanticipated program needs and that SB 1383 obligates cities to procure certain organic-waste-derived products; one staff member explained that cities commonly distribute compost to parks and the public as part of compliance arrangements.
On sales tax timing, Andrews said remittances arrive monthly and that local sales-tax receipts are reported with a lag (roughly a quarter in arrears), which affects when a downturn would show up in city receipts and require budget adjustments.
Public comment included remarks from Eloise Shim, a Salinas resident and member of the Historic Resources Board, who asked the committee to consider budget attention for city-owned historic buildings in Chinatown. Shim said the Historic Resources Board recently approved a community historic-survey project costing about $400,000 and urged the committee to account for revitalization or stabilization of long-vacant, city-owned buildings in that neighborhood.
The committee discussed the report and generally received it for further work by staff. There was no formal vote on adopting new appropriations during the meeting; members indicated staff would bring recommended budget actions back through the normal processes, including the Finance Committee prior to any Council action.

