Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, October 14, 2026 – Eight municipal managers carry an annualized base-pay bill of about 7.25 million pesos, September payroll records show.
That is slightly below the 7.34 million pesos reported in an October 13 analysis, which attributed its calculation to municipal payroll information obtained through transparency procedures.
For residents paying property taxes and relying on municipal services, the central question extends beyond the salary total: What do these eight offices deliver for the money?
City documents describe a management structure intended to coordinate departments, improve administration, and connect government programs. They also establish a system for measuring results. Published activity reports show work underway, although shared responsibilities and inconsistent figures complicate an assessment of individual offices.
Separating recurring salary from other payments
The September payroll lists the same daily salary rate for all eight managers. That produces ordinary pay of 37,748.10 pesos per twice-monthly period, or 75,496.20 pesos monthly per position.
Multiplied across eight positions and 24 pay periods, the annualized base-pay calculation is 7,247,635.20 pesos. This projects a full year at those rates; it does not reflect what was actually paid throughout 2026.
The distinction between salary and other payments affects the comparison. NoticiasPV identifies Terrance Vincent O’Halloran Lepe as receiving 41,522.91 pesos per pay period. In the September 16–30 record, that amount appears instead under Juan Pablo Martínez Torres and includes a 3,774.81-peso vacation premium. O’Halloran’s ordinary salary matches the other managers.
NoticiasPV does not identify the payroll period underlying its figures, preventing a direct reconciliation with that September record.
The recurring salary calculation also excludes Christmas bonuses, vacation premiums, employer contributions, and the costs of supporting staff and office operations. It therefore represents only part of the expense of maintaining the management structure.
The spending comes amid wider pressure on municipal finances. Vallarta Daily reported October 7 that Mayor Luis Munguía was considering an advance on federal transfers to cover Christmas bonuses, placing senior management costs within a broader discussion about meeting payroll obligations.
What the eight offices are supposed to contribute
The city’s development plan and departmental reports describe the following areas of work. The descriptions below summarize their scope and reported activities.
| Management office | Work described in municipal records |
|---|---|
| Smart Government | Administrative modernization, institutional innovation and more accessible government services. |
| Territory and Sustainable City | Coordination involving public services, infrastructure, urban planning and environmental work. |
| Community Building | Neighborhood services, community centers, resident requests and public participation. |
| Equity, Substantive Equality, Health and Care | Health campaigns, inclusion, care and coordination with health institutions. |
| Social Communication and Government Strategy | Communication policy, media campaigns and supervision of official content. |
| Organization and Strengthening of Public Administration | Internal organization, personnel administration and municipal assets. |
| Prosperity, Economic Development and Tourism | Business training, tourism activities and economic coordination. |
| City and Historic Center | Public-space improvements, event logistics and coordination involving municipal services. |
The municipal development plan describes managers and thematic working groups as part of daily operations, alongside departments that align activities with longer-term goals.
Some offices explain that division more clearly than others. The communications management report says it designs and supervises strategy carried out through the communications and design departments, including approval of written, graphic, and audiovisual content.
The Organization and Strengthening office’s report identifies personnel administration and municipal property as its supporting areas. Its initial March activities included meetings with department heads and a preliminary diagnosis of administrative needs.
These arrangements can give a manager a coordinating role across existing departments. Their value depends on whether that coordination produces better service, clearer decisions or measurable improvements.
Shared projects need identifiable responsibilities
The reports provide examples of several offices contributing to one project.
The Prosperity office’s April–June account lists an inspection visit connected to the Downhill & Freestyle event. The City and Historic Center report describes helping with logistics, construction, and painting of obstacles for the cycling event.
Those are distinguishable contributions to a shared activity. They illustrate why participation by multiple offices does not, by itself, establish unnecessary duplication.
Other activities cross broader boundaries. The Equity, Health and Care report records participation in dengue prevention, vaccination activities and cleaning the Pitillal River, alongside official events and meetings.
These records establish what offices report doing. They do not consistently show the cost of each contribution, the target it served, or the resulting improvement. That limits how confidently readers can judge each manager’s performance.
The city already has a framework for evaluating results
The development plan identifies the Innovation and Institutional Development Department, working through its control, evaluation and monitoring unit, as responsible for coordinating performance assessment.
Under that framework, departments are to submit monthly indicator data through the municipal monitoring system, SIMIREM. Quarterly reports are supposed to include activities, spending progress, and principal results.
The plan also describes an expectation for 2026 that, translated from Spanish, “each department will operate with its own budget ceiling, predefined indicators and autonomy.”
That creates a practical basis for evaluating the management layer: compare assigned responsibilities and spending with completed work, service improvements, and results against targets.
For example, if a resident reports a broken streetlight, useful performance information would connect the request to the responsible department, the repair, and its completion date.
The Community Building office’s April–June report shows why that distinction matters. It describes addressing resident petitions by referring them to the relevant departments, including requests involving lighting, public spaces, and basic services. A referral documents an administrative step; establishing completion requires information about the service delivered.
The same report also needs an internal reconciliation. Its narrative states that the office received 262 requests during the quarter. Its accompanying table lists 125 approval requests, 24 provisional street-number requests, four self-construction requests, and 22 other petitions.
Those entries total 175 — leaving an 87-request difference between the two totals in the same quarterly report.