Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Salinas oversight committees review Measure E and G finances as public presses for hiring and spending transparency
Loading...
Summary
City staff told the Measure E and G oversight committees on April 16 that both sales-tax measures are performing near expectations, while public commenters and committee members pressed for clearer reporting on vacancies, capital-project overruns and whether Measure G should include a sunset.
Salinas staff presented quarter-three, unaudited financial reports for Measure E and Measure G on April 16, telling the joint oversight committees the measures are generating revenue near budgeted expectations while prompting public calls for greater transparency about staffing and capital spending.
Assistant Finance Director Abe Pedroza said Measure E is projected to generate about $7.2 million in sales tax for fiscal year 2025–26, with a total Measure E revenue budget of $18.5 million (which includes investment earnings). "We are showing 63% received for the transaction and use tax revenue and 62% overall," Pedroza said, noting the benchmark for seven of 12 months is 58% and February revenues were expected soon. Pedroza told the committee Measure E currently funds about 90.5 positions and that some salary savings reflected vacancies.
The report for Measure G projected $34.5 million in sales tax for FY25‑26 and a total Measure G revenue budget of $36.1 million. Pedroza said Measure G funds 106.5 positions, had received about 63% of expected transaction and use tax revenue through the same reporting period, and that Measure G represents roughly 38% of the city's sales and use tax revenue and about 19% of general fund revenue. He warned Measure G is set to expire in 2030 and staff estimated a potential annual revenue gap "over $40,600,000" if it is not renewed.
Members of the public used the meeting's public-comment period to press officials for more detail on how measure funds are being spent. One resident said, "You guys need to really come clean and be responsible for what you do," and urged council members, the mayor and the city manager to address perceived mismanagement. Another speaker, Peter Zola, who said he had previously served on the measures' oversight, recommended the committee consider a 10- or 15-year sunset rather than making Measure G permanent, arguing periodic renewal preserves accountability: "Should we make it permanent or should it have a sunset?"
Committee members and staff exchanged questions about specific line items. A member asking about insurance and fleet line items was given the following figures on the record: general liability, $491,000; property insurance, $214,004.91; fleet maintenance, $176,000; animal services, $275,000; emergency dispatch, $351,000. Pedroza acknowledged one large debt-service number read aloud during the meeting appeared garbled on the record and staff did not restate a corrected amount during the public Q&A.
Public-safety spending and training drew specific attention. A committee member asked whether Measure E funds support leadership and specialty training for officers; Police Chief Acosta confirmed they do. "We just had one of our sergeants graduate from the Sherman Block Leadership Academy last year," Chief Acosta said, and noted commanders attend command college and sergeants receive internal-affairs investigation training; he added the department is close to 100% compliance on CIT (critical-incident training).
Questions about vacant positions recurred. Chair Hobby asked whether the roughly 90.5 Measure E positions were all filled; Pedroza said they were not and that vacancies account for some salary savings. HR Director Marina Gallegos told the committee the city is actively recruiting: "We are in the middle of panel interviews, department interviews," Gallegos said, and she identified the library and community services as areas with active recruitments.
Several residents described what they called "ghost jobs"—positions budgeted but not filled—and raised frustration with capital-improvement projects that exceed their initial budgets. One resident asked where permit-center money and other large project allocations had gone and urged the city to publish clearer post-completion comparisons of proposed budget versus actual cost.
On procedure, several committee members urged the city not to combine Measure E and Measure G oversight sessions, saying separate meetings reduce confusion about which revenue source supports which expenditure. Committee member Ish said he hoped future sessions would be "only for Measure E" when he attends, and other members echoed the request for clearer, itemized reports (including open-position lists and post-completion CIP budgets).
The committee approved the minutes of Jan. 15, 2026, by roll-call vote. The meeting concluded with closing remarks thanking staff for the additional detail in the report and adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
What's next: Staff committed to provide vacancy details and further itemized CIP information on request; Measure G remains on the books through 2030 unless the council forwards a renewal recommendation to voters.
