Agenda Item #15.1
For Council Meeting of: June 2, 2026
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CITY COUNCIL
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MISTI D. WOOD, COMMUNICATIONS & INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER SUBJECT: LET’S TALK, SANTA ROSA REPORT
AGENDA ACTION: ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ONLY
RECOMMENDATION
The Communications and Intergovernmental Relations Office recommends that the Council receive a report on the Let’s Talk, Santa Rosa community engagement initiative. This item has no impact on current fiscal year budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes key findings from the “Let’s Talk, Santa Rosa” survey, examines areas of agreement and disagreement among community members, and contextualizes those perceptions alongside performance data and prior surveys to inform future policy and budget decisions. Staff will provide updated participation numbers and analysis at the Council meeting because outreach and data collection are ongoing.
GOAL
This item relates to Council Goal #1 - Achieve and Maintain Budgeting Excellence and Fiscal Stability because the initiative engages our community about budget and service priorities as the City works towards fiscal stability.
BACKGROUND/PRIOR COUNCIL REVIEW
On March 24, 2026, the City launched “Let’s Talk, Santa Rosa,” a bilingual community engagement initiative designed to gather broad and inclusive input on service priorities as part of the budget planning process. The project has generated strong participation, with more than 2,000 survey responses collected through online and inperson engagement opportunities, along with four meetings and presentations conducted with community groups and other stakeholders. While this initiative has been discussed at Council in the context of community engagement and budget planning, Council has not taken action on this item.
ANALYSIS
Overall Ranking Results
“Maintaining 911 emergency medical and fire response services” has been identified as the top choice overall, with 40% of respondents ranking those services as the top priority.
It is important to note that this indication does not maintain across all clusters. While “Maintaining 911 emergency medical and fire response services” ranked highest overall, priorities varied across neighborhoods. As an example, respondents that live in zip code 95401 and work in Santa Rosa ranked “Preventing streets from deteriorating – fixing streets and repairing potholes” as their top priority.
This indicates that while there is a meaningful, but not overwhelming, preference for “Maintaining 911 emergency medical and fire response services,” respondents were much less consistent in the placement of the remaining options.
Qualitative Results
Survey comments were analyzed using a thematic, multi-field qualitative framework which coded the submissions of public feedback. This approach allows for consistent and value-added interpretations to distinguish overall perceptions of public services.
For the section asking participants, “What other priorities are important to you,” 35% of respondents mentioned either public safety or transportation, categories already identified as priorities. Concerns regarding traffic laws were prevalent in these comments, with respondents consistently citing concerns for speeding violations or pedestrian safety.
Homelessness and affordability represent the second most frequently mentioned topic among Santa Rosa residents, with 17% of respondents stating that homelessness or affordability is a priority. In comparison, public safety and transportation concerns were cited 20% and 15%, respectively. Of comments citing homelessness as a priority, 80% of respondents support programs designed to respond to homelessness, with only 6% of respondents opposed.
Maintenance was found to be a frequent topic and mentioned as priority in 15% of comments. 44% of these comments mention street repair or transportation concerns Parks and public spaces were mentioned in 25% of all comments related to maintenance.
Bike lanes and other forms of multi-modal transportation are highly controversial within the respondents with:
47% of participants’ comments supporting these efforts and 40% vehemently opposed.
Conclusion
The survey analysis indicates that resident priorities are influenced not only by measurable outcomes such as crime rates or emergency response times, but also by lived experience, visibility of issues, and perceived vulnerability. When considered alongside public safety performance data, these priorities do not reflect declining service levels or a performance gap, but maintaining current service levels is essential to sustaining community confidence.
Independent evaluations and departmental metrics show that Santa Rosa continues to benefit from high-performing emergency response, crime prevention, and traffic safety systems. Notably, a national study of more than 180 U.S. cities ranked Santa Rosa as the safest city in California and among the safest nationwide in 2025.
Residents prioritize services they fear losing during times of financial stress, even when public safety programs have already been prioritized institutionally. The persistence of public safety as a top priority across three community surveys, despite strong objective outcomes, reflects the community’s heightened sensitivity to risk amid economic pressures. In this context, public safety likely functions as a symbolic and foundational service, one that residents prioritize because of its perceived role in protecting their overall quality of life.
While survey results offer valuable insight into residents’ priorities, they also present a risk if interpreted too literally in the framing of future funding allocations. If funds are invested in already high-performing areas without producing perceivable improvements in daily quality of life, resident frustration and long-term distrust may foment, even if funds are used appropriately and transparently. Consequently, those investments may yield diminishing returns compared to ones in infrastructure maintenance, housing stability, traffic engineering, and recreational services that shape residents’ daily experience and perceptions of safety and quality of life.
FISCAL IMPACT
Receipt of this report does not have a fiscal impact on the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the recommended action is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In the alternative, the recommended action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the recommended action may have a significant effect on the environment.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Not applicable.
NOTIFICATION
Staff conducted robust bilingual notification of the survey opportunity. Notification methods include social media, City Connections newsletter, tabling, mailers, word of mouth, emails to community groups and leaders, and presentations. Additionally, staff capitalized on advertising opportunities when presented, such as placing signs in the Santa Rosa Plaza Mall.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Appendix 1
PRESENTER(S)
Misti D. Wood, Communications & Intergovernmental Relations Officer Luke Faser, Administrative Analyst for City Manager’s Office
LET'S TALK, SANTA ROSA REPORT
PAGE 3 OF 3