Measure G: where the money went.

The capital collapse

New Measure G capital appropriations peaked in the tax’s first full budget year and never returned to that level; the closest any later year came was FY 2023–24, at $9.39 million, about 59% of the peak. By FY 2025–26 the city appropriated no new Measure G capital at all — the only capital lines that year release unspent balances from projects back into the fund.

All 202 project rows

Project rows as printed in the adopted capital improvement program books and budget exhibits. Amounts are budgeted, not spent, and are rounded to whole dollars. Five FY 2025–26 rows carry negative amounts: they release unspent balances back into the Measure G fund rather than appropriating capital, and total −$1,230,505. Reconciling with the $76,719,278 allocation total above: the itemized new-capital rows sum to $73,843,378, which is $2,875,900 short because FY 2016–17’s budget book prints an allocation larger than the 12 project lines it itemizes (of 48). Netting the $1,230,505 of releases against the allocation total leaves a $1,645,395 gap, and the table’s own net total is $72,612,873.

1. 1

   The police building was over-budgeted by $14.5 million

   Across ten budget years — FY 2015–16 through FY 2024–25 — Measure G budgets set aside $45,579,900 for public-safety-building debt service ($51.6M including FY 2025–26). Actual debt service came to $31,093,821 — a cumulative $14,486,079 more budgeted than was owed. The audited financial statements contain no pledge of Measure G revenue to that debt. In FY 2021–22 the city made a $7,635,000 prepayment on the debt — a prepayment neither the audits nor any staff report explains, authorizes, or mentions. Police is also the single largest cumulative use of Measure G at $77,349,899 budgeted — the largest department for the tax’s first seven years, until Public Works overtook it in FY 2022–23.

2. 2

   The oversight record is three retrievable reports in eleven years

   Measure G came with a citizens’ oversight committee. Searching the city’s published record turns up three retrievable citizen oversight reports across the eleven years the tax has been collected. Separately, the audited financial statements never itemize where the money transferred out of Measure G actually goes. The destinations listed in the year-by-year panel above come from the Fund Transfers schedules of the adopted budget books — the plan, not the outcome. Where that itemized total and the audited transfers-out figure disagree, the gap is adopted plan versus audited actual.

3. 3

   Renewal is on the ballot before the tax expires

   Measure G is scheduled to sunset on April 1, 2030. A renewal goes before Salinas voters on November 3, 2026 — more than three years early. Measure G is a general tax, which means its revenue is not legally restricted to any of the purposes named in the ballot question. See the voter cheat sheet for what is on the ballot and when. A committee named “Keep Salinas Strong and Safe: Committee to Renew Measure G” has filed 2026 campaign statements; see its 2026 Money page.

What it was supposed to cost, and what it did cost

The police facility has four different price tags in the public record, and they were published five years apart. None of them was ever reconciled against another in a City document.

On the last row. The $8,009,875 appears on a report captioned “Measure G Funding — One-Time CIP Expenditures.” It is not established that these are Measure G cash dollars on top of the debt: the audited trace finds that construction ran as a separate project funded from bond proceeds, while the City’s own Measure G expenditure reporting carries the line. staff-reported The published documents do not resolve which is correct, and this page does not add the two together.

Who built it

On April 18, 2017 the City Council awarded the predevelopment agreement by Resolution 21151. A staff report describes the action: on April 18, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 21151 and awarded the Predevelopment Agreement to the team of Griffin/Swinerton and LPA, Inc. council record An amended and restated predevelopment agreement followed on May 15, 2018. council record

• Developer: Griffin Swinerton, a joint venture of Griffin Structures, Inc. and Swinerton Builders. The bond offering document states: Griffin Swinerton, a joint venture of Griffin Structures, Inc., a California corporation (‘Griffin’), and Swinerton Builders, a California corporation (the ‘Construction Manager’), has been selected as the developer (the ‘Developer’) for the Project. official statement
• General contractor / construction manager: Swinerton Builders, under a guaranteed-maximum-price construction management agreement. official statement
• Architect: LPA, Inc. — LPA, Inc., a California corporation, is the architect for the Project (the ‘Architect’). official statement
• Groundbreaking: September 10, 2018, with completion then scheduled for January 28, 2020. staff-reported
• Completion: the building opened around May 2020 — two buildings, a 44,352 sq ft headquarters and a 24,878 sq ft support building. news No document in the audited or council record reviewed states completion, acceptance, or occupancy. audited statement

The contract price was never published

There is no council resolution awarding a construction contract for this building, because the City was not the contracting party. The development agreement dated June 1, 2018 runs between Salinas Public Facilities, Inc. — the nonprofit issuer — and Griffin Swinerton; the guaranteed-maximum-price construction management agreement runs between the issuer and Swinerton Builders. official statement The executed fixed price was left blank in the April 2018 draft offering document and does not appear as a standalone figure in the council attachments reviewed. official statement

The official dollar figures that were published are these:

The $49,430,000 figure comes from a police department status report: Bonds closed June 28, 2018, providing $49,430,000 to build the new PSHQ. staff-reported The City’s audited statements carry the par amount as $48,825,000. audited statement The two figures are not reconciled in any document reviewed.

Who the money is owed to

Salinas did not issue these bonds. Salinas Public Facilities, Inc. did — a California nonprofit public benefit corporation organized in April 2016, recognized as a 501(c)(3), operating from offices at 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100, Seattle, Washington, the same address as its parent, the nonprofit developer Public Facilities Group. official statement

• It is a limited-purpose entity, formed exclusively to issue the Bonds and the Library Bonds and to develop and manage the police headquarters and El Gabilan Library projects. It is not a governmental unit and has no taxing power. official statement
• Its three officers and directors are executives of Public Facilities Group — John Finke (director and president), Erin Birkenkopf (director, vice president, secretary and treasurer) and Matt Calcavecchia (director and vice president). None is a City of Salinas official. official statement
• The offering document disclosed the entity’s inexperience in plain terms: PFG and the Issuer have only been in existence since 2016 and have not yet completed a project financing. Salinas was its opening transaction. official statement
• The issuer owns the building and leases it back to the City until the bonds are retired, at which point ownership passes to the City. official statement news

The creditor of record is not the City’s bank. It is The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., acting as trustee for the bondholders: The Bonds are issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of June 1, 2018 (the ‘Indenture’), by and between the Issuer and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the ‘Trustee’). official statement The City’s lease payments — budgeted from Measure G, against a maximum annual debt service of $4,799,181 audited statement — flow to the trustee, which pays the bondholders. official statement council record

No pledge of Measure G exists

In eight years of audited financial statements, the long-term debt note for this lease never names Measure G and discloses no revenue pledge of any kind. audited statement The only link anywhere in the audited volume is one unquantified sentence on a supplementary fund-description page: Lease payments are made from the City’s Measure G Funds. audited statement

The City draws the distinction itself, on the very same page. For its sister bond issue it writes a real pledge — certificates that will be secured by Measure X Revenues — and it assigns the twin El Gabilan Library lease to Measure E. audited statement Measure X secures its bonds. Measure G merely pays this lease, as a matter of budget practice. Measure G is a general tax and is legally unrestricted, which is precisely why the City can budget it, redirect it, and under-transfer it without breaching anything.

What the money shows

1. 1

   The budget exceeds the debt by $14,486,079

   Across ten budget years, FY 2015–16 through FY 2024–25, Measure G budgets set aside $45,579,900 for police building financing — $51,567,300 including FY 2025–26. council record Actual debt service paid on the bonds over the same period was $31,093,821, being $22,230,000 of principal and $8,863,821 of interest. audited statement The cumulative excess is $14,486,079, roughly 47% more than the bond ever cost. inferred

2. 2

   The excess is provably not in the fund that pays the debt

   The debt service fund’s balance was $0 on June 30, 2018 and $0 on June 30, 2025, and it never exceeded $14,939 in any year in between. Its seven-year roll-forward closes to exactly zero: $31,287,611 transferred in, plus $272,610 of investment income, minus $31,560,221 of expenditures. audited statement inferred The over-budgeted money never accumulated in the fund that pays the debt.

   Where it did go cannot be determined from public documents. Every audited statement reports Measure G’s transfers out only inside a blended “General Fund” aggregate, so a Measure G transfer to any other destination would be invisible. audited statement Three explanations survive the record — the money never left the Measure G fund; it left for a destination other than the debt fund; or the staff figure is an accounting artifact — and the published documents cannot choose between them. Closing the question requires the City’s general-ledger interfund detail, which is not published.

3. 3

   A $7,635,000 prepayment that no document explains

   In FY 2021–22 the City retired $10,410,000 of principal against $2,775,000 scheduled — $7,635,000 of extra principal in a single year. audited statement The outstanding balance dropped from $46,185,000 to $35,775,000 and the maturity schedule shortened accordingly. audited statement The effect was to eliminate roughly $9.8 million of future debt service. inferred

   Neither the audits nor any staff report explains, authorizes, or even mentions the prepayment. audited statement staff-reported The 2018 financing plan had contemplated a City equity contribution of $8,298,000 council record — but no document in the record connects that plan to what happened in FY 2021–22, and this page does not connect them either.

4. 4

   Before the bonds existed, $17,031,000 was appropriated and $3,893,484 was drawn

   From FY 2015–16 through FY 2018–19 the City budgeted $17,031,000 to CIP project 9244, the Measure G police-facility debt service line — three years of it before any debt existed. council record The City’s own project reporting shows that line at 0% spent in FY 2015–16, 0% in FY 2016–17 and 0% through December 31, 2017, then a single draw of $3,892,484 in FY 2017–18 and $1,000 in FY 2018–19. staff-reported Life-to-date $3,893,484 — a figure that never moves again through FY 2024–25. $13,137,516, or 77.1%, was never drawn, inferred and $931,722 was still carried unspent seven years after issuance before being de-appropriated in FY 2025–26. staff-reported These were appropriations, not payments; the Measure G cash never left the Measure G fund for this purpose.