We should be able to count on the services our city promises and see what our money buys. That takes more than a budget balanced on paper or a pledge to cut waste. It takes knowing which money recurs and which is borrowed from the future, how much a new council could actually change, and whether spending reaches the results it was meant to deliver.
We want reliable services, budgets that state their full and honest costs, and public evidence of results. City revenue is not quality of life, and a lower tax is not automatically a better outcome. Every budget choice has people who benefit and people who bear its cost, and we try to name both.
Each number is labeled as adopted (the budget as voted), audited, city-reported, projected or our own calculation. A projection is never money received, and a budget line is never a result.
Environment: this page covers Water supply; Water reuse; Utility investment; Citywide climate reporting. Go to that section.
Question 1
How much does the city spend, and how much can change?
TakeawayMost of the budget is committed before a new council arrives. The real choices sit in a smaller share.
The General Fund pays for police, fire, libraries, parks and most other services. For FY 2026-27 the council adopted $525.2 million of operating spending and $509.5 million of revenue1. Water, Big Blue Bus, the Pier and the other enterprise funds are separate. Their customers pay for them, and promises cannot draw on them.
By our estimate, 77–80% of operating spending is committed before a new member takes office: pay and benefits at labor-contract rates, school agreements and debt service2. That leaves $107M–$119M in theory and less in practice. This is our inference from city documents, not a city figure.
Contracts fix pay rates, not headcount, so staffing is the one large lever, and it is slow and costly. Changing an adopted budget takes 5 of 7 votes3, so a new member's first real budget is FY 2027-28.
Where the FY 2026-27 General Fund operating budget is committed
Pay and benefits at contract rates
$360.8 million1, including pensions and health care. Contracts set rates through June 2029 for police and fire and June 2030 for other staff.
Adopted; benefit split estimated
School district payments
$30.3 million4 a year under two agreements. One ends in June 2027; the other's term is uncertain.
City-reported
Debt service
$14.7 million3 in lease revenue bond payments, which must be budgeted every year.
Adopted plan
Room to move, in theory
$107M–$119M2 remains after $405.9M–$418.0M of commitments. The same pool pays utilities, insurance and contracts we could not itemize, so the realistic share is smaller by an unknown amount.
Our calculation
Money promises cannot use
Enterprise funds such as water and Big Blue Bus total $310.4 million1 and are paid for by their own customers. Restricted funds such as Measure GS ($17.6 million) serve purposes voters set.
Adopted
General Fund amounts for FY 2026-27 unless stated. The committed share is our estimate: benefit costs are estimated from citywide percentages, and city Finance has been asked for actual figures.
How we estimated the committed share
The low case counts only hard obligations: all salaries and wages at contract rates, debt service, both school agreements at the district's booked figure, and the scheduled Housing Trust Fund repayment. The high case adds an advisory housing set-aside and retiree health prefunding, both estimated. That gives $405.9M–$418.0M committed2.
The range is an upper bound on room, not a lower one. Raises scheduled for July 1, 2027 add an estimated $14.9 million2 of salary growth before anything new is funded, and vacancy savings the city already assumes cannot be counted again.
Question 2
Is the budget balanced, and on what kind of money?
Takeaway"Balanced" can mean recurring money covers recurring costs, or that one-time money bridges a gap.
After a September 2025 resolution identifying fiscal distress5, the council used a $60 million one-time reserve bridge while new revenue from parking, ambulance billing, fees and digital signs ramped up6. Staff call the adopted budget balanced7. The documents we reviewed do not show every item linking revenue to spending, so we have asked city Finance.
Several new revenues are still projections. The parking estimate fell from $9.0 million a year6 to $7.2 million a year. Ambulance billing is projected at $5.5 million this year, though the March update described about $7 million a year as already coming in8, and gross receipts are not net savings. No sign revenue had been reported received9.
Voters decide part of the picture on November 3. The city's forecast reaches structural balance partly because a $12 million school Joint Use Agreement ends after June 20279. Measure ES, a citizen parcel tax estimated at $12 million a year, would fund that partnership instead. Measure TT concerns hotel tax during major events10. We explain both and take no position.
The largest unbudgeted risk is abuse claims. The city has paid $229.8 million in settlements, about $204.6 million11 after insurance recoveries so far, and about 180 plaintiffs have open claims, with no liability accrued for them in the audited statements12.
Recurring money, one-time money and projections, FY 2026-27
| Item | Kind of money | Amount | Evidence type | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating spending | Recurring cost | $525.2 million1 | Adopted | June 2026 |
| Revenue | Mostly recurring | $509.5 million1 | Adopted | June 2026 |
| Reserve use | One-time | Two city figures differ; asked Finance | Forecast and proposed budget | March and May 2026 |
| New parking revenue | Recurring | $7.2 million a year9 | Revised projection | May 2026 |
| Ambulance billing | Recurring, gross | $5.5 million9 | Projection | May 2026 |
| Digital signs | Recurring once running | $4.5 million a year9 | Projection; none received | May 2026 |
Spending and revenue are adopted totals from the same document. We show no difference between them until city Finance explains the connecting items. Audited FY 2025-26 results are expected around March 2027.
Settlement totals: gross, net and unknown
$229.8 million12 is the gross total the city tendered to its insurers. Net of recoveries received so far, it is about $204.6 million, our calculation11. The FY 2024-25 audit's litigation note gives a different total and plaintiff count, which we have not reconciled. What the open claims could cost, and when, is unknown.
Question 3
Did dedicated money do what voters and funds were promised?
TakeawayRestricted money needs its own accountability: what was promised, what came in, what was spent and what was borrowed.
Measure GS, the 2022 tax on sales of high-value property, was estimated on the ballot at $50 million a year13. Audited revenue was $37.05 million in its first full fiscal year14 and $24.80 million the next, and $33.0 million sat unspent on June 30, 202512. A volatile tax missing its estimate is not misconduct. Ask whether plans adjusted.
Settlements drew $25 million from the Housing Trust Fund and $15 million held in the Water Fund3. A 2023 policy repays them, relying mostly on insurance recoveries and sales of city land.
Big Blue Bus reported $117.1 million of grant money received before eligibility conditions were met, while service stayed near 80% of pre-pandemic levels12. That is a lead, not proof that money is idle or could be redirected.
Promised, received, borrowed and held
| Fund | Promised or planned | Received or drawn | Spent, repaid or held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure GS | $50 million a year13 (ballot estimate) | $37.05 million14, then $24.80 million12 (audited) | $33.0 million12 unspent, June 2025 |
| Housing Trust Fund | Affordable housing | $25 million3 used for settlements | Repaid $339,242 a year3 plus one-time proceeds |
| Water Fund | Water and cleanup | $15 million3 used for settlements | Transfers back from FY 2029-30 |
| Big Blue Bus | Grants for operations and capital | $117.1 million12 before conditions met (audited) | Restrictions and deadlines not yet known |
Measure GS and Big Blue Bus amounts are audited. Settlement draws and repayment terms come from the city's adopted fiscal policies. A fund balance is not a result.
Question 4
What are water and climate investments buying?
TakeawayEnvironmental spending should be judged by resilience and emissions outcomes, with ratepayer costs stated plainly.
The 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan set a goal of cutting emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, promised annual progress reports and emissions inventories, and estimated city costs near $800 million over a decade with no funding plan15. We found no progress report or inventory among council items since. We could not access the city's climate pages, so this is a gap in located evidence, not proof of absence. A standard for large buildings was pulled in September 202516.
Water self-sufficiency, once dated 2020 and then 2023, has not been reached. The June 2026 dry-year assessment still counts on imported Metropolitan Water District water17. The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project recovers 1,680 acre-feet a year, about 11% of supply3. The proposed SMART reuse project is estimated at $93 million, with the city paying at least 75% from the Water Fund18.
Water projects are paid by rates and fees, not the General Fund; this year's Water Fund capital budget is $20.2 million1. Stable rates and faster self-sufficiency can conflict, and both affect lower-income households.
Goals, targets and the latest evidence we located
| Goal | Adopted target | Latest located measure | Paid by | Next report |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower emissions | 80%15 below 1990 by 2030 | No inventory located since the 2019 plan | Not funded as a whole | Annual reports promised; none located |
| Water supply | Self-sufficiency (dated 2020, then 2023) | Still imports water in a dry year (June 2026) | Water rates | Revised date not located |
| Local reuse now | Recover local water | 1,680 acre-feet a year3 recovered | Wastewater and stormwater funds | None scheduled |
| Local reuse next (SMART) | More local supply | Grant application, September 2026; vote not verified | Water Fund, at least 75%18 | Budget changes if grant awarded |
| Large buildings | Performance standard | Pulled September 2025 | No immediate city cost | No return date |
Targets and project figures are city-reported. We did not access the city's climate pages. Beach water quality is covered on the parks page.
Dedicated environmental funds this year
The Stormwater Fund budgets $13.2 million in FY 2026-27, mostly a one-year capital line for the Memorial Park runoff project, and the Clean Beaches fund from Measure V budgets $4.6 million1. Where most of the Measure V fund's transfer goes is not stated in the budget. These totals describe spending, not cleaner water; the parks page covers beach outcomes.
Question 5
How would we know whether spending works?
TakeawayAccountability means outcomes, dates and actual results, published where residents can find them.
The city's Realignment scorecard, updated through April 2026, separates outputs from outcomes and flags the permitting system as off track, but some result cells read TBD or show budgeted values, and it covers only Realignment commitments19. In September 2026 staff proposed hiring Raftelis for $326,600, without competitive bidding, to build a citywide framework; the vote is not verified20.
The city's savings approach is targeted: vacancy management, fixing programs that lose money and assessing specific operations6. A zero-based audit is a genuinely different method, screening programs by outcomes rather than finances. Ask both what scope, cost and timing they have, and which decision they would change. A savings claim should name the program and amount, and a new dashboard should say what the scorecard lacks.
Accountability also covers how decisions are made. Members recuse today under state conflict-of-interest law21, and the council placed Measure TT on the ballot at a meeting that convened after midnight22. Ethics, disclosure and public-comment proposals belong here, judged by what they would change and how they would be enforced.
An accountability ladder: what each reporting tool shows
| Rung | Realignment scorecard (April 2026) | Citywide framework (proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Activity reported | Yes | Planned |
| Outcome named | Yes, separate from outputs | Common method planned |
| Actual result published | Partly; some TBD or budgeted values | Not yet |
| Date and owner stated | Some dates; owners not checked | Not specified |
| Corrective action triggered | Not shown in our review | Not specified |
Each rung stands on its own: a program can report activity without naming an outcome. The scorecard description comes from our September 2026 review and has not been re-checked.
Question 6
Which candidates reflect this approach?
Our position: recurring costs should be met by recurring money, budgets should count full costs, projections should be labeled as projections, and results should be published. These choices stay open, and we do not grade against a preference on them: how fast to end reserve use, new revenue versus cuts, targeted versus zero-based review, resident pricing, water investment pace versus rate stability, and local ethics and meeting rules. We take no position on Measures ES or TT.
Shared slogans about transparency are not alignment; the case lies in named funding, tradeoffs and measures. The comparison covers all 12 candidates, keeps the quality of each public case separate from alignment, and shows fiscal sustainability, reporting and water accountability separately, with no averaged score. Tax cuts, new taxes and frozen rates must each name what replaces the money. Silence is not opposition. These assessments are drafts, not yet reviewed or sent to campaigns.
Our assessments of each candidate are published after every campaign has had 72 hours to review them and respond. Each candidate's approach, public evidence and open questions are below.
Phil BrockSpecific commitments found on reviewed site · Has served on the council; votes reviewed
Fiscal sustainability
Approach: No 2026 campaign position reviewed. On the council he moved placing the 2022 real-property transfer tax (Measure CS) on the ballot, writing in a 10-year sunset that the council could extend once by five years only by supermajority, a rate of $25 per $1,000 on the part of a sale above $8 million, and an advisory share for housing assistance; he agreed to write the ballot argument in favor. In 2021 he offered a budget substitute that paid for added outreach and neighborhood funds by cutting the City Attorney's budget by $70,000 (failed), and he voted for the FY 2021-23 and FY 2023-25 budgets.
Tradeoff or open dependency: A time-limited transfer tax bridges the budget but its yield swings with large property sales, and earmarking part of it narrows what it can cover when it ends.
A question to ask: What would you cut or raise if transfer-tax revenue falls, and what should replace it when the sunset arrives?
Public evidence (3)
Councilmember Negrete proposed an amendment to the recommendation to adjust from $20 per thousand dollars to $30 per thousand dollars and direct the difference will go 100 percent to affordable housing projects, and that the sunset should be increase to 15 or 20 years instead of 10 years. Motion by Councilmember Brock, to amend the measure by adding a 10-year sunset clause, the city council could approve a 5-year extension, with a Supermajority vote; make the amount $23 per thousand dollars; part of the Advisory measure $7 per thousand of the money to provide housing assistance and increase the POD program for seniors. Councilmember Davis, seconded the motion, with amendments, at least 30 percent of the proceeds would go to programs to housing assistance and address housing displacement ... proposed $25 per thousand dollars ... accepted as friendly by the maker. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan. NOES: Mayor Himmelrich. ABSENT: None. Councilmember Brock agreed to write the Argument in Favor of this measure.vote · minutes 2022-07-26 printed pp. 11-13, item 11.B (Resolution 11450, transfer tax / Measure CS) · 2022-07-26 · source
Substitute motion by Authority/Councilmember Brock, seconded by Authority/Councilmember de la Torre, to adopt ... the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budgets ... With the amendments to restore West Coast Care to 2019 levels to $260,000, add $20,000 to the Neighborhood Associations budget, and defund the City Attorney's Office by $70,000 to fund these increases. The substitute motion failed: AYES: de la Torre, Brock; NOES: Davis, McCowan, Himmelrich; ABSTAIN: Parra. The original motion (McCowan/Davis), with an amendment directing $1 million of ARPA funds to clean and safe services at the Pier, beach and Esplanade, was approved: AYES: Parra, Davis, Brock, de la Torre, McCowan, Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2021-06-22 printed pp. 11-12, item 9.B (FY 2021-23 biennial budget) · 2021-06-22 · source
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to adopt ... the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget ... Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to fund the $1,300 to keep the Montana Library open for the neighborhood groups ... transferred from the Council's discretionary fund. The City Manager reported that the Library will absorb this cost ... The amendment was withdrawn. Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed a friendly amendment to allocate more money to the Police Department in the amount of $500,000 ... After hearing from the Chief, the amendment was withdrawn. ... AYES: de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Negrete, Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Then: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendations 4 through 17 and 19 [incl. the Homeless Strategic Plan engagement] ... approved 7-0.vote · minutes 2023-06-27 printed pp. 10-12, item 12.A (FY 2023-25 biennial budget) · 2023-06-27 · source
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: Expand the advisory powers of the Human Services Commission and have the council listen to it. On the council (2020-2024) he served on the existing Audit Subcommittee and voted for its request for fuller loan disclosure in the audited financial report. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Which decisions the commission would advise on, and whether added powers need an ordinance, a Charter change or added staff.
A question to ask: Which decisions would the Human Services Commission advise on that it does not today?
Public evidence (3)
"Expand the advisory powers of the Human Services Commission and listen to them!" / "If anything, their powers should be strengthened."promise · Brock #7 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Councilmember Brock volunteered to serve on the Audit Subcommittee. There being no other nominations, Councilmember Brock was appointed to the Audit Subcommittee for a term ending June 30, 2025". AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2021-08-24 printed p. 13, item 13.C (Audit Subcommittee appointment) · 2021-08-24 · source
"Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete to approve item 5.C. to direct staff to fulfill the request of the Subcommittee for additional information on loans issued by City." The Subcommittee had asked for disclosure of "the gross amount of loans and amount of allowances, as well as a summary of the accounting principles driving the loan allowances." AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Parra.vote · minutes 2023-04-11 printed p. 9, item 5.C (ACFR presented to the Audit Subcommittee) · 2023-04-11 · source
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Lindsay DavisSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Reporting, audits and ethics
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you publish about city spending and results that is not published today, and on what schedule?
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Eli GillSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: Public real-time dashboards on permitting timelines, response rates and program outcomes; a measure of whether every major program works; every dollar tied to results such as people housed, people treated and public spaces restored; deadlines and a named owner for every permit and decision; a plain-English budget showing what money buys. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Real-time dashboards and program metrics need data systems and staff whose cost is not estimated, and the overlap with the city's proposed citywide framework is not addressed.
A question to ask: What would your dashboards add to the city's scorecard and proposed measurement framework, what would they cost, and what happens to a program that misses its result?
Public evidence (6)
"Public performance dashboards. Residents should be able to see how the city is performing in real time: permitting timelines, response rates, program outcomes."promise · Gill #14 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Metrics tied to every major program. Every significant city program should have a clear answer to one question: how do we know if this is working?"promise · Gill #16 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Accountability for outcomes. … Every dollar spent should be tied to a measurable result: people housed, people treated, public spaces restored."promise · Gill #4 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Shot clocks on city decisions. Every permit, every planning decision, every business license should have a clear deadline and a clear owner."promise · Gill #15 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Shot clocks and dashboards. Every business application should have a clear timeline. Every department should be held to it. And the city’s performance should be public."promise · Gill #7 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Budget transparency. The city’s budget should be readable by a normal resident. Not just a line-item spreadsheet, but a plain-English accounting of where the money goes and what it’s buying."promise · Gill #13 · 2026-09-27 · source
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Daniel IvanovNo specific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Reporting, audits and ethics
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you publish about city spending and results that is not published today, and on what schedule?
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Wade KelleyNo campaign site found in September review
Fiscal sustainability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Reporting, audits and ethics
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you publish about city spending and results that is not published today, and on what schedule?
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Ericka LesleySpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Reporting, audits and ethics
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you publish about city spending and results that is not published today, and on what schedule?
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Brett MorrowSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Reporting, audits and ethics
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What would you publish about city spending and results that is not published today, and on what schedule?
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Lana NegreteSpecific commitments found on reviewed site · Has served on the council; votes reviewed
Fiscal sustainability
Approach: No campaign position reviewed. On the council she voted for the October 2025 Realignment Plan, including its $60 million one-time reserve bridge to structural balance targeted for FY 2027-28 and its parking-rate increase, and for the FY 2026-27 budget. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: The bridge spends one-time reserves while new revenue (parking, ambulance billing, a parcel tax) is still projected; if that revenue falls short, cuts or new taxes follow.
A question to ask: The General Fund is using reserves to balance this year. How would you close the gap, and with what recurring money?
Public evidence (5)
"Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt staff recommendation items 1, 3-11, 16-19, removing the gondola." AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2025-10-28 printed p. 11, item 11.A (Realignment Plan, recommendations 1, 3-11, 16-19) · 2025-10-28 · source
"Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to adopt staff recommendation item 2." AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall.vote · minutes 2025-10-28 printed pp. 11-12, item 11.A (Realignment Plan, recommendation 2, parking rates) · 2025-10-28 · source
"Motion by Authority/Councilmember Snell, seconded by Chair/Mayor Torosis, to adopt the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget the first year and approving the second year of the FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget, and the staff recommendation." AYES: Authority/Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Vice Chair/Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor/Chair Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (Negrete recused herself only from the separate $20,000 Grad Night allocation.)vote · minutes 2026-06-23 printed p. 17, item 12.A (FY 2026-27 budget and FY 2026-28 CIP; draft minutes marked NOT APPROVED) · 2026-06-23 · source
Councilmember Negrete proposed an amendment to the recommendation to adjust from $20 per thousand dollars to $30 per thousand dollars and direct the difference will go 100 percent to affordable housing projects, and that the sunset should be increase to 15 or 20 years instead of 10 years. Motion by Councilmember Brock, to amend the measure by adding a 10-year sunset clause, the city council could approve a 5-year extension, with a Supermajority vote; make the amount $23 per thousand dollars; part of the Advisory measure $7 per thousand of the money to provide housing assistance and increase the POD program for seniors. Councilmember Davis, seconded the motion, with amendments, at least 30 percent of the proceeds would go to programs to housing assistance and address housing displacement ... proposed $25 per thousand dollars ... accepted as friendly by the maker. AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan. NOES: Mayor Himmelrich. ABSENT: None. Councilmember Brock agreed to write the Argument in Favor of this measure.vote · minutes 2022-07-26 printed pp. 11-13, item 11.B (Resolution 11450, transfer tax / Measure CS) · 2022-07-26 · source
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to adopt ... the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget ... Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to fund the $1,300 to keep the Montana Library open for the neighborhood groups ... transferred from the Council's discretionary fund. The City Manager reported that the Library will absorb this cost ... The amendment was withdrawn. Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed a friendly amendment to allocate more money to the Police Department in the amount of $500,000 ... After hearing from the Chief, the amendment was withdrawn. ... AYES: de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Negrete, Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Then: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendations 4 through 17 and 19 [incl. the Homeless Strategic Plan engagement] ... approved 7-0.vote · minutes 2023-06-27 printed pp. 10-12, item 12.A (FY 2023-25 biennial budget) · 2023-06-27 · source
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: Advocate clearer reporting of taxpayer-funded projects and measurable results from city programs. On the council she seconded the 2023 motion granting the Audit Subcommittee's request for fuller loan disclosure, and seconded the December 2025 motion that approved the Santa Monica Scorecard request. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: The scorecard she helped approve covers only Realignment commitments and shows some budgeted values in actual-result columns; a citywide framework contract was still pending in September 2026.
A question to ask: Which projects are hard to follow today, and what would clearer reporting show residents?
Public evidence (3)
"…while advocating for clearer reporting of taxpayer-funded projects and measurable results from City programs."promise · Negrete #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete to approve item 5.C. to direct staff to fulfill the request of the Subcommittee for additional information on loans issued by City." The Subcommittee had asked for disclosure of "the gross amount of loans and amount of allowances, as well as a summary of the accounting principles driving the loan allowances." AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Parra.vote · minutes 2023-04-11 printed p. 9, item 5.C (ACFR presented to the Audit Subcommittee) · 2023-04-11 · source
"Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Negrete to continue items 16.A.-16.B. and approve items 16.C.-16.E." AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 16.C: "Request of Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmember Raskin that the City Council direct the City Manager ... to establish a Citywide Realignment Performance Framework and public-facing dashboard that organizes outcome and output performance indicators across the Realignment Plan's five priority areas, was approved." 16.E: "Request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tempore Zwick, and Councilmember Hall that Council establish a formal performance evaluation process for the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, was approved."vote · minutes 2025-12-16 printed pp. 15-16, items 16.C-16.E · 2025-12-16 · source
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Ashley OelsenSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
Approach: A zero-based review of discretionary spending that screens out programs with redundant or unproven outcomes and aligns spending with actual revenue projections, plus a five-year fiscal plan with honest assumptions, published revenue targets and publicly tracked benchmarks. (New relative to current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: A zero-based review takes staff or auditor time and money that is not estimated, and "align with actual revenue projections" names no date or cuts while the adopted budget still relies on reserves.
A question to ask: Would you end the use of reserves sooner than the city's plan, and which discretionary programs would you cut to do it?
Public evidence (2)
"The city must conduct a zero-based audit of discretionary spending, identify programs with redundant or unproven outcomes, and align expenditures with actual revenue projections."promise · Oelsen #9 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Santa Monica needs a five-year fiscal plan with honest assumptions, published revenue targets, and publicly tracked benchmarks."promise · Oelsen #10 · 2026-09-27 · source
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: Automatic recusal for any business, professional or organizational tie; resolving conflicting dual roles; disclosure before related votes and FPPC referrals; earlier notice and no major votes late in long meetings; outcome-based renewal and independent review of homelessness contracts; publicly tracked fiscal benchmarks. (New relative to current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Automatic recusal and dual-role rules may need a Charter amendment and voter approval, and state conflict law may limit stricter local rules; non-renewing homelessness providers needs a plan for their clients.
A question to ask: Would your recusal and dual-role rules need a Charter amendment, and what outcome would a homelessness provider have to miss before losing its contract?
Public evidence (6)
"Council members with any business involvement, professional relationship, or organizational affiliation connected to a matter before the council must recuse themselves from that vote. No exceptions, no discretion."promise · Oelsen #24 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Restore meaningful public comment with advance notice, plain-language agendas, and genuine participation before decisions are finalized. Scheduling major votes at the end of five-hour meetings … That stops."promise · Oelsen #27 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Dual roles that create conflicts must be resolved by stepping down from one of them"promise · Oelsen #25 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Enforce FPPC rules vigorously and refer violations for investigation. Full public disclosure must occur before any vote that touches a council member's professional, financial, or organizational interests."promise · Oelsen #26 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Every dollar spent on homelessness must be tied to a measurable outcome. Contracts with service providers that cannot demonstrate results should not be renewed." / "Providers that cannot show measurable outcomes, transparent funding, and a willingness to submit to independent review should not be renewed or expanded."promise · Oelsen #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Santa Monica needs a five-year fiscal plan with honest assumptions, published revenue targets, and publicly tracked benchmarks."promise · Oelsen #10 · 2026-09-27 · source
Water and climate accountability
Approach: Mandate monitoring of PAH, PCB and dioxin contamination in Santa Monica Bay and publish results on a regular schedule. (New relative to current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Who pays for ongoing toxics monitoring (the Clean Beaches fund, ratepayers or the General Fund), and whether it would duplicate state and regional monitoring.
A question to ask: Which fund would pay for bay toxics monitoring each year, and how often would results be published?
Public evidence (1)
"Mandate active monitoring of PAH, PCB, and dioxin contamination in Santa Monica Bay and publish results publicly on a regular schedule."promise · Oelsen #22 · 2026-09-27 · source
Caroline TorosisNo specific commitments found on reviewed site · Has served on the council; votes reviewed
Fiscal sustainability
Approach: Claims to have stabilized city finances and eliminated the structural deficit. She moved the October 2025 Realignment Plan package, including its $60 million one-time reserve bridge to structural balance targeted for FY 2027-28 and the parking-rate increase, and seconded adoption of the FY 2026-27 budget. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: The bridge spends one-time reserves while new revenue is still projected; the claimed balance depends on the $12 million school payment ending in 2027 and on revenue that has not yet arrived.
A question to ask: City documents project structural balance by the end of FY 2026-27, once the school payment ends. Is the deficit eliminated now, and what recurring money covers the gap if Measure ES or other revenue falls short?
Public evidence (5)
"Stabilized city finances and eliminated the structural deficit"campaign page · Torosis claim 1 (accomplishments page) · 2026-09-27 · source
"Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt staff recommendation items 1, 3-11, 16-19, removing the gondola." AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.vote · minutes 2025-10-28 printed p. 11, item 11.A (Realignment Plan, recommendations 1, 3-11, 16-19) · 2025-10-28 · source
"Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to adopt staff recommendation item 2." AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Hall.vote · minutes 2025-10-28 printed pp. 11-12, item 11.A (Realignment Plan, recommendation 2, parking rates) · 2025-10-28 · source
"Motion by Authority/Councilmember Snell, seconded by Chair/Mayor Torosis, to adopt the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget the first year and approving the second year of the FY 2026-28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget, and the staff recommendation." AYES: Authority/Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Vice Chair/Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor/Chair Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (Negrete recused herself only from the separate $20,000 Grad Night allocation.)vote · minutes 2026-06-23 printed p. 17, item 12.A (FY 2026-27 budget and FY 2026-28 CIP; draft minutes marked NOT APPROVED) · 2026-06-23 · source
Motion by Authority/Councilmember Torosis, seconded by Authority/Councilmember Zwick, to adopt ... the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget ... Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to fund the $1,300 to keep the Montana Library open for the neighborhood groups ... transferred from the Council's discretionary fund. The City Manager reported that the Library will absorb this cost ... The amendment was withdrawn. Authority/Councilmember Brock proposed a friendly amendment to allocate more money to the Police Department in the amount of $500,000 ... After hearing from the Chief, the amendment was withdrawn. ... AYES: de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Parra, Zwick, Negrete, Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Then: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendations 4 through 17 and 19 [incl. the Homeless Strategic Plan engagement] ... approved 7-0.vote · minutes 2023-06-27 printed pp. 10-12, item 12.A (FY 2023-25 biennial budget) · 2023-06-27 · source
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: Co-authored the December 2025 request, approved 7-0, for a Santa Monica Scorecard: outcome and output indicators across the Realignment Plan's five priority areas, quarterly and annual targets, a public dashboard, biannual updates to council and an annual effectiveness review with recommendations for reallocating resources. Also co-authored a formal performance evaluation process for the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk, and voted for fuller loan disclosure in the audited financial report. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: A citywide indicator system needs staff and data work whose cost the request did not estimate; the delivered scorecard covers only Realignment commitments, and a $326,600 citywide framework contract was still pending in September 2026.
A question to ask: The scorecard you requested shows some budgeted values in its actual-result columns and covers only Realignment commitments. What would you change, and when should a citywide version be public?
Public evidence (3)
"Establish quarterly and annual performance targets for each indicator so that the public can understand progress and what success looks like." / "Provide biannual updates to the City Council summarizing progress across all KPIs." / "Provide the City Council with an annual evaluation of the Realignment Plan's effectiveness ... and include recommendations for updates, adjustments, or resource reallocations as necessary."vote · council item 2025-12-16, item 16.C request text (Torosis, Hall, Raskin) · 2025-12-16 · source
"Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Negrete to continue items 16.A.-16.B. and approve items 16.C.-16.E." AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 16.C: "Request of Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmember Raskin that the City Council direct the City Manager ... to establish a Citywide Realignment Performance Framework and public-facing dashboard that organizes outcome and output performance indicators across the Realignment Plan's five priority areas, was approved." 16.E: "Request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tempore Zwick, and Councilmember Hall that Council establish a formal performance evaluation process for the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, was approved."vote · minutes 2025-12-16 printed pp. 15-16, items 16.C-16.E · 2025-12-16 · source
"Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Negrete to approve item 5.C. to direct staff to fulfill the request of the Subcommittee for additional information on loans issued by City." The Subcommittee had asked for disclosure of "the gross amount of loans and amount of allowances, as well as a summary of the accounting principles driving the loan allowances." AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Torosis, Brock, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, Mayor Davis. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Parra.vote · minutes 2023-04-11 printed p. 9, item 5.C (ACFR presented to the Audit Subcommittee) · 2023-04-11 · source
Water and climate accountability
No reviewed statement or vote on this subtopic. Silence is not opposition.
A question to ask: What should the city's water and climate spending be judged on, and what would you tell ratepayers it costs them?
Derrick TownsendSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
Approach: Cut the sales tax, prevent future increases, and cut taxes generally to leave more money with families and businesses. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: A sales-tax cut likely needs voters, reduces the school district's half of the city's add-on tax, and removes recurring General Fund revenue with no named replacement.
A question to ask: How large a sales-tax cut, which city services or school payments would shrink, and would you put it to voters?
Public evidence (1)
"Cut the sales tax and prevent future increases on all purchases, and keep more money in the pockets of Santa Monica families and businesses." / "Derrick will … cut taxes"promise · Townsend #7 · 2026-09-27 · source
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: A public dashboard showing every project cost line (acquisition, construction, relocation, change orders, consultants, contingencies) in real time; full independent audits of major Housing Trust Fund projects; mechanisms to recover money when funds are mismanaged or projects exceed private-sector benchmarks. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Real-time cost dashboards and full independent audits need staff, systems and audit contracts that are not costed, and recovery depends on contract terms the city may not have.
A question to ask: Which projects would the dashboard and audits cover, who would audit them, and what would trigger recovering money?
Public evidence (3)
"Create a public-facing dashboard with every line item (acquisition, construction, relocation, change orders, consultants, contingencies) updated in real time."promise · Townsend #14 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Demand full independent audits of major Housing Trust Fund projects. No more rubber-stamping."promise · Townsend #13 · 2026-09-27 · source
"If funds are mismanaged or projects exceed reasonable benchmarks compared to private-sector equivalents, the city needs mechanisms to recover money."promise · Townsend #15 · 2026-09-27 · source
Water and climate accountability
Approach: Invest in advanced water treatment to stop pollution at the source and protect Santa Monica Bay. (Continues current city policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Which treatment projects beyond those under way (SWIP, SMURRF, the Pico-Kenter tank, the proposed SMART project), and whether water rates, the Clean Beaches tax or the General Fund would pay.
A question to ask: Which water treatment project would you add, how much would it cost, and who would pay for it?
Public evidence (1)
"Invest in advanced water treatment to stop pollution at the source and protect Santa Monica Bay, our city's greatest natural asset."promise · Townsend #17 · 2026-09-27 · source
Doug TrusslerSpecific commitments found on reviewed site
Fiscal sustainability
Approach: No permanent new taxes; reduce taxes on residents and fix the budget; a zero-based audit to redirect money from programs without measurable outcomes; resident discounts through a Resident Card with visitors paying market rates; protect school funding by solving the city's fiscal challenges. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Cutting resident taxes and prices while the General Fund already relies on reserves and on about $7.2 million a year in higher parking revenue needs named cuts or new revenue. Coastal-access rules may also limit resident pricing.
A question to ask: Which resident taxes and prices would you cut, by how much, and which spending would you cut to replace the money?
Public evidence (4)
"no new taxes should be permanent that fix the City financial situation. We have had enough taxing of Santa Monica residents, we can address affordability by reducing taxes on residents and by fixing the City budget."promise · Trussler #27 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Conduct a zero-based audit of city spending to redirect resources from programs that don't produce measurable outcomes to those that do."promise · Trussler #26 · 2026-09-27 · source
"I will fight to protect that — and fund it — by solving the City's fiscal challenges before they force painful cuts to schools and other services."promise · Trussler #36 · 2026-09-27 · source
"A Santa Monica Resident Card — digital, simple, verifiable — becomes the infrastructure … Visitors pay the market rate. Residents pay less."promise · Trussler #28 · 2026-09-27 · source
Reporting, audits and ethics
Approach: Monthly public dashboards on crime, response times and prosecution rates, measured on an absolute basis, and quarterly public reporting of actual vacancy rates, business openings, taxable transactions and hotel occupancy. (Expands current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Prosecution rates depend on the District Attorney, not the city, and monthly dashboards need staff time that is not costed and may duplicate existing reporting.
A question to ask: What would your dashboards show that the existing SMPD dashboards and city scorecard do not, and what happens when a number gets worse?
Public evidence (2)
"Commit to publishing monthly public dashboards on crime, response times, and prosecution rates" / "Measure improvement or failure on an absolute basis"promise · Trussler #2 · 2026-09-27 · source
"Actual vacancy rates, new business openings, taxable transactions, hotel occupancy — reported publicly, quarterly, with accountability attached."promise · Trussler #22 · 2026-09-27 · source
Water and climate accountability
Approach: Rate stability for city-controlled water and refuse charges, ending automatic annual increases passed through to residents without accountability. (Changes or reverses current policy.)
Tradeoff or open dependency: Holding rates shifts cost to slower water-supply and infrastructure investment or to cuts in the water and refuse funds, and rates must still follow rate studies and Prop 218 hearings.
A question to ask: If water and refuse rates stay flat, which costs or projects in those funds would you cut or delay?
Public evidence (1)
"Rate stability on water and waste for city-controlled charges. No more automatic annual increases passed through to residents without accountability."promise · Trussler #31 · 2026-09-27 · source
Answer this policy area's questions yourself, and see how candidates answered.
Inspect our reasoning
Our position
Candidates are assessed against these commitments. Other choices on this page are open, and we compare approaches to them without grading.
- Recurring costs should be paid with recurring money; one-time money should pay for one-time costs or a bridge with a stated end.
- Budgets and proposals should state full costs, including benefits, debt, liabilities and costs shifted to other funds or to ratepayers.
- Projections, estimates, adopted amounts, actual receipts and audited results should be labeled for what they are.
- Spending should be linked to outcomes, with dates, owners and actual results published where residents can find them.
Why we hold these, what they depend on, and what would change our view
Related policy areas
Where this connects
Sources, figures and research notes for this page · All policy areas