Finance and Management Services
www.santa-ana.org/finance
Item # 30
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
May 5, 2026
TOPIC: Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
AGENDA TITLE
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Discuss and provide direction to staff.
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
DISCUSSION
The City Council provided Early Direction on April 7; staff has since updated the draft budget based on City Council consensus. This report includes additional information on some of the funding options and strategies discussed.
The City’s two largest General Fund revenue sources are property tax and sales tax, which together account for 57% of resources. Roughly 16% of property in Santa Ana pays no property tax due to government or nonprofit ownership, excluding City-owned property and the public right-of-way. The median household income in Santa Ana is $93,000, yet the cost of living is 60% above the national average. When the economy softens or takes a downturn, our sales tax revenue is immediately impacted.
The City can raise revenue through voter-approved taxes and recover costs for individual services. With significant effort, the City can also support a thriving business community that generates sales tax revenue and local jobs, but these relationships and projects often take years to bear fruit. Thus, the City should maximize it’s ability to generate income through the use of City property, which currently accounts for only 3.5% of our General Fund revenue. This includes park facility rentals and investment earnings on idle cash, both of which are subject to market limitations.
Within these revenue realities, the City operates in a heavily regulated sphere with high costs to provide fast, effective public safety; parks and related programs; libraries; events; and discretionary programs that address homelessness and support immigration and the arts. The City is subject to legal requirements and has entered into contracts, both of which prohibit cost reductions in many areas throughout the budget. In addition, the City
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
faces significant liability for safety issues and litigation. It is through this lens that we must take steps to close an updated $13 million gap to rebalance the budget.
Updated General Fund Outlook
Since the Early Direction discussion, revenue assumptions have been updated and expenditure estimates refined. As a result, the previously estimated General Fund deficit for FY 2026–27 has been reduced from approximately $19 million to approximately $13 million. A summary of the key changes is provided below.
Description Impact on Deficit
Initial Estimated Deficit ($19 million)
Net Revenue Adjustments (increase of approximately $0.95 million from CPI-based and other updates, partially offset by a $1.2 million reduction in sales tax based on the latest consultant update)
($0.25 million)
Net Expenditure Adjustments (OC Streetcar timing adjustment— $0.5M vs. $2.0M; contracts held flat despite typical escalation; equipment replacement funding not included; partially offset by a higher required employee pension contribution than previously assumed)
$5.75 million
Revised Estimated Deficit $13 million
Potential balancing options are summarized in Exhibit 3 and some are discussed further throughout this report. If these options are implemented, the remaining shortfall would be reduced to approximately $4.7 million.
The $4.7 million estimate assumes adoption of the options presented. To the extent that any of these strategies are not supported or are modified, the remaining deficit would increase accordingly. As such, the $13 million represents the current deficit, while the $4.7 million reflects the estimated remaining deficit after incorporating the proposed adjustments discussed below.
Staff is seeking City Council direction on how to address the remaining estimated $4.7 million shortfall. This includes feedback on the proposed balancing options presented in Exhibit 3, as well as guidance on prioritization using the categories discussed during Early Direction and summarized again in Exhibit 4. As part of this process, staff recommends further review of discretionary or “nice-to-have” items to determine whether these should be reduced or maintained. Staff will incorporate City Council feedback into the Proposed Budget for consideration at the upcoming budget workshops.
As Santa Ana employs various methods to close a budget gap, other state and local governments are struggling to balance their budgets. For its FY25-26 budget, the City of Los Angeles negotiated five unpaid furlough days with the LA City Coalition of Unions and Engineers and Architects Association, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
agreed that its members would take overtime as paid time off to reduce overtime expenses and eliminate LAPD civilian layoffs. On April 13, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the City of San Diego had tentatively agreed to one-week furloughs for more than 5,000 white-collar workers. On April 6, multiple news outlets reported that the City of San Francisco issued 127 layoff notices, expects to defund another 500 jobs in the coming months, and is discussing employee furloughs. If Santa Ana is unable to employ additional cost-saving or revenue-raising strategies for FY26-27, the City Council may need to discuss employee furloughs to avoid layoffs. One 9-hour furlough day from represented employees saves $489,172; this excludes Police Officers, Correctional Officers, and Police Dispatch.
At a minimum, the staff presentation during this agenda item is expected to include the following:
Summary of community outreach and priorities
Revenue trends and estimates for significant sources
Summary of the proposed Cannabis Public Benefit Fund spending plan Update of the current state of the draft General Fund budget, along with a reconciliation from prior estimates and a list of potential balancing measures Discussion of the recommended $3 million allocation of one-time General Fund money for the City Council to select from a menu of potential uses One-Time General Fund Resources
As presented during Early Direction, the City identified approximately $11.6 million in one- time General Fund resources, of which $3.0 million is specifically allocated for City Council direction. Approximately $2.2 million of one-time funds has been shifted to the General Fund reserve to maintain the 18% reserve requirement due to higher recurring revenues in FY 2026–27, leaving $9.4 million for one-time spending. During the Early Direction discussion, City Council reviewed staff's proposed uses of these one-time funds and generally supported prioritizing investments that address risk, maintain infrastructure, and support operational stability. Consistent with that discussion, Exhibit 2 provides a menu of potential one-time uses for the remaining $3.0 million for City Council consideration.
A summary of the recommended one-time uses to be included in the Proposed Budget, subject to City Council direction, is provided below:
Category Proposed Use Estimated Amount
Liability/Risk Management
Additional contributions to
Workers’ Compensation or
General Liability reserves
$2,000,000
Infrastructure / Facilities
One-time repairs and
improvements to City-owned
facilities
$2,000,000
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
Pension Stabilization
One-time contribution to the
Pension Stabilization Account
(Section 115 Trust)
$1,500,000
Service Stabilization
One-time support for the
residential street sweeping
program
$900,000
Remaining Available (for
City Council priorities)
To be determined by the City
Council $3,000,000
Total One-Time Resources $9,400,000
The following section provides additional details in response to questions and feedback received during early direction. As requested, staff has included updated information and clarifications to support further discussion and potential next steps.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Overview
The City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), also known as Hotel Visitors Tax or HVT in the Santa Ana Municipal Code, is currently set at 11% and is applied to short-term stays at hotels. The City currently has 33 active hotels generating TOT revenue. In recent years, TOT has remained a stable revenue source, ranging from a high of approximately $10.5 million over the past four years, depending on occupancy levels and economic conditions (see table below). As part of the discussion during Early Direction, the City Council expressed interest in understanding how Santa Ana’s rate compares to neighboring cities.
Staff has included Exhibit 1, which compares TOT rates across selected Orange County cities. For reference, each 1% increase in the Santa Ana TOT rate is estimated to generate approximately $900,000 in additional annual revenue, based on current collections.
FY25-26
Estimated
FY 24-25
Actual
FY 23-24
Actual
FY22-23
Actual
$9,500,000 $9,475,393 $9,504,727 $10,477,648
The City continues to work collaboratively with the hospitality sector to strengthen overall operating conditions and maintain its competitiveness as a visitor destination. While an increase would generate additional revenue, the overall impact would be relatively modest.
Animal Shelter
To control animal services costs in the short term, staff will review the Shelter contract and the City’s municipal code to identify opportunities for changes. An example is potentially imposing requirements for stray animals dropped off over the counter and charged to the City. Recent statistics indicate this particular type of transaction accounts for as much as 68% of charge-days apportioned to Santa Ana. Staff has been researching options for a long-term solution to control costs and potentially improve service.
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
Historic Resources Commission
The City’s Historic Resources Commission (HRC) reviews projects to preserve and maintain the City’s historic assets, pursuant to Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. This includes a review of property listings and categorizations, as well as recommendations on Mills Act agreements, exterior modifications, demolitions, and other changes that may impact historically significant resources.
Historically, the City recovered the full cost of administering this program through application and review fees charged to project applicants. In FY 2014–15, the City Council approved a reduction in these fees, lowering the level of cost recovery and resulting in a portion of program costs being subsidized by the General Fund. If the City were to return to full cost recovery, fees would be updated to reflect the actual cost of staff time and administrative support associated with historic review, including research, site visits, evaluation of historic aerial imagery and records, genealogy research, and discussions with property owners. These updates would be incorporated into the City’s Miscellaneous Fee Schedule and would be limited to cost recovery.
Participation in the Mills Act program provides a financial incentive to property owners by reducing property tax obligations in exchange for preserving and maintaining historic properties. For example, a property valued at $1.5 million may realize approximately $7,875 in annual property tax savings under a Mills Act agreement. This reduction in property tax revenue results in an estimated annual loss of approximately $1,496 to the City. Returning to full cost recovery is estimated to reduce the General Fund subsidy by approximately $54,800 annually. The estimated $54,800 in savings reflects the elimination of the remaining General Fund subsidy, as approximately $46,000 in program costs is already recovered through existing fees.
A summary of current fees and estimated full-cost recovery levels is provided in the table below.
Fee Type Current
Rate
Full
Recovery
Historic Register Categorization / Application $500 $7,501 Historic Property Preservation Agreement $2,954 $5,887
The HRC serves as the decision-making body for applications and other matters required by Chapter 30. It comprises nine members, including seven officials appointed by the City Council, and one representative each from the Planning and Community Development commissions, which elect those representatives. While this commission performs specialized functions for historical properties and districts, it is not a commission required by State law. As a result, the number of its commissioners may be modified or eliminated, and its functions may be delegated to staff and/or the Planning Commission. Its functions could be consolidated with the Planning Commission, resulting in additional General Fund Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
savings of approximately $10,800 annually, in addition to the savings achieved through full cost recovery.
Santa Ana Stadium Fees
The Santa Ana Stadium (Eddie West Field) is a City-owned facility that hosts a range of local events, including high school and collegiate football games, community soccer matches, and other community activities. As part of the Early Direction discussion, the City Council requested additional information on recent stadium revenues, operating costs, and facility needs. A summary of events hosted during FY 2025-26 is provided in the table below.
Event Event Duration
(Hours)
Net Revenue
OC Toy Drive
hosted by Revival
Church
9 $11,459
SoCal Suhoor
Festival religious
gathering to
celebrate Ramadan
18 $20,047
America Leyendas
vs Leyendas Del
Morelia soccer
match
2.5 $1,387
Peachtree Concert
Series
20 $50,607
Total 49.5 $83,500
For FY 2025-26, the stadium is estimated to generate approximately $245,000 in gross revenue, primarily from facility rentals and event-related use. While the facility remains one of the City’s premier athletic venues, the current fee structure has historically prioritized community access and may not fully reflect prevailing market rates for comparable facilities.
To move toward better alignment with market rates, staff is recommending a 14% fee increase for stadium use as part of the FY 2026-27 Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, instead of the 4% CPI adjustment proposed for other City fees. This adjustment is intended to position the City’s pricing more consistently with comparable facilities, particularly for athletic events that do not require additional field protection.
For larger-scale events, such as concerts that require protective ground covering, the City utilizes Facility Use Agreements to ensure that all associated costs are recovered and that the City receives appropriate compensation for use of the facility.
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
To create synergy between stadium events and local hospitality businesses, staff will ensure Wendy Haase-Roberts of Travel Santa Ana is invited to the City’s Special Events Roundtable each month, where she will receive updates and a 10-week outlook on all street events, Citywide special events, and third-party events, including those at the stadium. In addition, staff will engage during Travel Santa Ana’s quarterly meetings to exchange information and contribute to strategy. City management expects that the enhanced collaboration will enable hospitality businesses to capitalize on stadium events, leading to additional sales tax and hotel visitors’ tax revenue.
Now that the City has successfully hosted large-scale multi-day events at the stadium, staff expects to maximize stadium and related revenue through the proposed 14% increase for single-day use; Facility Use Agreements for multi-day use; improved communications with Travel Santa Ana; and proposed improvements to the security fencing, restrooms, and facility to host food trucks for a fee.
To improve the marketability of the Stadium, staff proposes $1.6 million in capital spending to replace the security fencing around the entire perimeter, refurbish the upper concourse restrooms, demolish the snack shack, and install the necessary infrastructure for food truck service at events to generate additional fee income. The Acquisition & Development District 2 has an expected spendable fund balance of $2.4 million as of June 30, 2026, sufficient to cover the $1.6 million project.
To enhance the facility's future athletic use, the City would need to fund a project to rehabilitate the locker rooms, which is currently estimated to cost at least $2.2 million.
Staff has not yet identified funding for such a project.
Paramedic Service Charges
The City’s current paramedic service rates are well below industry standards and regional market levels. Charges for Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) are approximately 27% to 55% lower than those of comparable providers across Orange County, where typical rates range from about $1,852 to $3,200, depending on service level.
To better align with regional practices, staff recommends adjusting paramedic service charges to match the rates set by the Orange County Emergency Medical Services (OCEMS). These rates are widely used across Orange County and represent a consistent, market-supported standard for ambulance billing.
A comparison of current rates, regional ranges, and proposed rates is provided below:
Service Type Current Rate Proposed
(OCEMS) Rate Peer Range
BLS (Base) $1,254 $2,517 $1,852 – $2,800
ALS E (Emergency) $1,485 $3,049 $2,041 – $3,200
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
ALS 2 (Higher Acuity) $1,485 $3,049 $2,041 – $3,200
Mileage (per mile) $23 $26.19 $10 – $27
This proposed adjustment is not expected to materially increase out-of-pocket costs for most patients. Approximately 76.5% of transports are covered by Medicare and Medi-Cal, which reimburse based on fixed federal and state fee schedules and are not affected by the City’s adopted rates. Commercial insurance accounts for approximately 10% of transports. For these patients, insurers primarily pay reimbursement, and patient cost- sharing is generally limited under State law. For the remaining transports not covered by Medicare, Medi-Cal, or commercial insurance, the City would continue to use existing billing practices and payment plan options to help manage affordability.
If approved, the City would continue to align its paramedic service charges with OCEMS rates, which are typically updated annually. This approach would ensure the City maintains consistency with regional providers and avoids falling below market rates in future years.
Aligning with OCEMS rates would improve cost recovery for paramedic services while maintaining consistency with regional providers. The additional revenue associated with this adjustment is included in Exhibit 3 as part of the City’s balancing measures.
Technology Fee Evaluation
As discussed during Early Direction, staff has continued to evaluate a potential technology fee associated with the City’s upcoming implementation of its new permitting and licensing system. Staff is currently finalizing a proposed fee structure. While this evaluation is still underway, an estimated revenue amount has been included in Exhibit 3 as part of the balancing options presented for City Council consideration.
Staff is seeking City Council feedback on whether to proceed with bringing forward a formal technology fee proposal for consideration. Any proposed fee would be evaluated for compliance with applicable state law and limited to the reasonable cost of providing the associated services.
Sober Living Homes
There are two primary types of facilities operating in the City. Residential Care Facilities are state-regulated and provide some form of medical care, which may include mental health services. These facilities are not subject to our local Ordinance or our local business tax. Sober-Living Homes, a subset of Group Homes, are not state-regulated.
These facilities are subject to the City’s business tax. In August 2025, the City Council updated the Municipal Code to impose regulatory standards and require use permits based on the size and nature of the uses. City Council could further direct staff to pursue nuisance abatement for both types of facilities, with the potential to recover our abatement costs, including attorney fees. Nuisance abatement is a lengthy process that requires significant staff time and documentation to pursue legal action.
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Work Study Session
May 5, 2026
5 7
4 9
Next Steps
After receiving further City Council direction during this agenda item, staff expects to return on May 19 with a draft budget for further City Council direction. After further adjusting the draft budget, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on June 2 to consider the City Manager’s proposed budget for FY26-27.
Staff is also seeking City Council direction on whether to schedule a dedicated budget workshop in May to allow for additional discussion. If the City Council is interested, staff has identified the following potential dates for consideration:
Tuesday, May 12
Wednesday, May 13
Friday, May 15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact at this time. City Council is scheduled to review the proposed budget in May, followed by a public hearing in June.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) County Comparison
2. List of Unfunded One-Time Needs for Consideration
3. Proposed General Fund Balancing Measures
4. Programs by Department and Spending Priority
Submitted By: Alexander Trinidad, Executive Director, Finance and Management Services Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager