Sources
Numbers match the footnote markers on the policy area page.
- FY 2025-27 Adopted Biennial Budget Addendum (FY 2026-27): revenue and expenditure summaries. City of Santa Monica, 2026-06-24.
- Room to move: what in the FY 2026-27 General Fund is locked (SM-Gov analysis of the adopted addendum, budget book and labor-agreement staff reports). SM-Gov, 2026-09-27. Archived copy; no public link yet.
- FY 2025-27 Adopted Biennial Budget (fiscal policies, debt schedules, department narratives). City of Santa Monica, 2025-06-24.
- Modification of the Measure YY/GS Master Facilities Use Agreement with SMMUSD, City Council report, item 11.A. City of Santa Monica, 2026-01-27.
- Adoption of Resolution Outlining the City's Current Fiscal Distress, City Council report, item 4.S. City of Santa Monica, 2025-09-09.
- Santa Monica Realignment Plan, City Council report, item 11.A. City of Santa Monica, 2025-10-28.
- FY 2026-27 budget and FY 2026-28 CIP adoption, City Council report, item 12.A. City of Santa Monica, 2026-06-23.
- Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update, City Council report, item 11.C. City of Santa Monica, 2026-03-24.
- FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget, City Council budget study session report, item 7.A. City of Santa Monica, 2026-05-26.
- Measures appearing on the November 3, 2026 ballot (list v12). Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, 2026-08-20.
- Abuse settlements: decisions, totals and funding sources (SM-Gov research file). SM-Gov, 2026-09-27. Archived copy; no public link yet.
- Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. City of Santa Monica, 2026-03-03.
- Resolution placing Measure GS on the November 8, 2022 ballot (adopted as Resolution No. 11448). City of Santa Monica, 2022-07-26.
- Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. City of Santa Monica, 2025-02-18.
- Adopt the Final Draft of the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, City Council report, item 11.B. City of Santa Monica, 2019-05-28.
- City Council minutes, September 9, 2025 (building performance standards, item 10.A). City of Santa Monica, 2025-09-09.
- Public Hearing and Approval of the 2026 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report, City Council report, item 12.A. City of Santa Monica, 2026-06-09.
- Resolution authorizing a Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI grant application for the SMART water reuse project, City Council report, item 4.A. City of Santa Monica, 2026-09-08.
- Realignment Plan Performance Measurement Dashboard, updated through April 2026 (described from SM-Gov's September 2026 review; not re-checked). City of Santa Monica, 2026-04.
- Award Professional Services Agreement with Raftelis for Organizational Performance and Operational Assessment Services, City Council report, item 4.M. City of Santa Monica, 2026-09-22.
- City Council minutes, January 13, 2026. City of Santa Monica, 2026-01-13.
- City Council special meeting minutes, July 28, 2026 (marked not approved). City of Santa Monica, 2026-07-28.
- Realignment Plan Attachment A: General Fund budget changes. City of Santa Monica, 2025-10-28.
- City Council minutes, January 27, 2026. City of Santa Monica, 2026-01-27.
Every figure on the policy area page
| Figure | What it counts | As of | Basis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $525.2 million | General Fund operating spending, FY 2026-27 (excludes capital) | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed pp. 10–11 |
| $509.5 million | General Fund revenue, FY 2026-27 | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed pp. 4–5 |
| 77–80% | Share of the FY 2026-27 General Fund operating budget committed to pay and benefits at contract rates, school agreements, debt service and related obligations. SM-Gov estimate. Pension, health, retiree health and workers' compensation are estimated from citywide percentages; contracts fix pay rates, not headcount. | 2026-06-23 | our calculation | Arithmetic (low and high cases) |
| $405.9M–$418.0M | FY 2026-27 General Fund operating budget committed, low and high cases. SM-Gov estimate; see committed share. | 2026-06-23 | our calculation | Arithmetic (low and high cases) |
| $107M–$119M | FY 2026-27 General Fund operating budget not committed, in theory. Upper bound. The same supplies-and-expenses pool pays utilities, insurance charges and multi-year contracts this review did not itemize. | 2026-06-23 | our calculation | Arithmetic (low and high cases) |
| $360.8 million | General Fund salaries and wages, including overtime and fringe benefits, FY 2026-27 | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed p. 10 |
| $30.3 million | City payments to SMMUSD under the Measure YY/GS facilities agreement and the Joint Use Agreement. City's approximation: $18.3M facilities agreement plus about $12M Joint Use Agreement. | 2026-01-27 | city reported | p. 2 of 4 |
| $14.7 million | General Fund lease revenue bond debt service, FY 2026-27. FY 2026-27 amount from the biennial budget's debt schedule. | 2025-06-24 | adopted budget | printed p. 319 |
| $310.4 million | Seven enterprise funds combined (Water, Wastewater, Big Blue Bus, Airport, Pier, Resource Recovery & Recycling, Cemetery), FY 2026-27. Sum computed from adopted fund totals. | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed p. 10 (sum of seven fund totals) |
| $17.6 million | Measure GS Fund budget, FY 2026-27 | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed p. 12 |
| $14.9 million | Estimated automatic General Fund salary growth from raises scheduled July 1, 2027, before benefit load-on. Estimate from department salary shares; city Finance asked for actual benefit costs. | 2027-07-01 | our calculation | What's not locked |
| $60 million | One-time General Fund reserves set aside as a bridge, FY 2024-25 to FY 2026-27 | 2025-10-28 | adopted budget | pp. 29–30 |
| $9.0 million a year | Estimated new parking revenue, October 2025 | 2025-10-28 | forecast | p. 31 |
| $7.2 million a year | Projected new parking revenue, FY 2026-27 against FY 2025-26 projected actuals | 2026-05-26 | forecast | p. 15 |
| $5.5 million | Projected ambulance billing revenue, FY 2026-27 (gross). Gross revenue; the service costs about $2.8M a year to run. | 2026-05-26 | forecast | p. 15 |
| $7 million a year | Ambulance revenue described in March 2026 as already being generated | 2026-03-24 | city reported | p. 19 |
| $4.5 million a year | Projected digital sign revenue once stabilized. No sign revenue reported received in the documents reviewed. | 2026-05-26 | forecast | p. 15 |
| $12 million | City payment to SMMUSD under the Joint Use Agreement, which expires in 2027. City's approximation; the district books $11,759,848 for FY 2026-27. | 2026-05-26 | city reported | p. 16 |
| $12 million a year | Estimated revenue from Measure ES, a citizen-initiative parcel tax on the November 3, 2026 ballot | 2026-08-20 | forecast | p. 15 |
| $24.7 million | FY 2026-27 General Fund reserve use, March 2026 forecast | 2026-03-24 | forecast | p. 53 |
| $4.67 million | FY 2026-27 one-time reserve use named in the May 2026 proposed budget (three deferred items) | 2026-05-26 | city reported | p. 17 |
| $6.0 million | City parcel tax revenue counted among FY 2026-27 General Fund funding sources in the October 2025 plan. The city's parcel tax was dropped in January 2026. | 2025-10-28 | adopted budget | p. 1 |
| $229.8 million | Abuse settlements paid by the City, gross. The same report's litigation note (p. 129) gives $225.825 million; not reconciled. | 2025-06-30 | actual audited | printed p. 11 (transmittal letter) |
| $204.6 million | Abuse settlements net of insurance recoveries received so far. Gross total less ACCEL (net), ICW and Lexington recoveries; the coverage suit against remaining insurers is ongoing. | 2025-06-30 | our calculation | Totals, caveat 2 |
| 180 | Plaintiffs with open abuse claims against the City. The report gives 181 in its litigation note and 178 in its transmittal letter. | 2025-06-30 | actual audited | printed p. 129 |
| $50 million a year | Measure GS revenue estimate in the 2022 ballot question | 2022-07-26 | forecast | p. 2 |
| $37.05 million | Measure GS revenue, FY 2023-24 (first full fiscal year) | 2024-06-30 | actual audited | printed p. 6 (PDF p. 50) |
| $24.80 million | Measure GS revenue, FY 2024-25 | 2025-06-30 | actual audited | printed p. 142 |
| $33.0 million | Measure GS fund balance, unspent, June 30, 2025 | 2025-06-30 | actual audited | printed p. 142 |
| $25 million | Housing Trust Fund money used toward abuse settlements | 2025-06-24 | city reported | printed p. 301 |
| $15 million | Boeing Gillette settlement money held in the Water Fund used toward abuse settlements | 2025-06-24 | city reported | printed p. 301 |
| $339,242 a year | Scheduled General Fund repayment to the Housing Trust Fund, four years from FY 2025-26 | 2025-06-24 | adopted budget | printed p. 303 |
| $117.1 million | Big Blue Bus unearned income, almost all grant money received before eligibility requirements were met | 2025-06-30 | actual audited | printed pp. 36, 102 |
| 80% | Big Blue Bus service level relative to pre-pandemic. City's approximation in the financial report narrative; the budget's target was 90 percent by August 2025. | 2025-06-30 | city reported | printed p. 36 |
| 80% | Climate Action & Adaptation Plan target: citywide carbon emissions below 1990 levels by 2030 (adopted goal, not a measurement) | 2019-05-28 | city reported | p. 2 |
| $800 million | Staff estimate of city costs to implement the climate plan over the following decade. "On the order of"; no funding plan adopted. | 2019-05-28 | forecast | p. 3 |
| 1,680 acre-feet a year | Water recovered by the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project from stormwater, dry-weather runoff and wastewater | 2025-06-24 | city reported | printed p. 205 |
| 11% | Share of supply recovered by the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project. City's approximation. | 2025-06-24 | city reported | printed p. 205 |
| $93 million | Estimated cost of the proposed SMART water reuse project | 2026-09-08 | forecast | p. 2 of 4 |
| 75% | Minimum city cost share required by the federal Title XVI program, from the Water Fund | 2026-09-08 | city reported | p. 2 of 4 |
| $20.2 million | Water Fund capital budget, FY 2026-27 (rate funded) | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed p. 14 |
| $13.2 million | Stormwater Management Fund budget, FY 2026-27, mostly one-year capital for the Memorial Park runoff project | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed p. 14 |
| $4.6 million | Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax (Measure V) Fund budget, FY 2026-27 | 2026-06-23 | adopted budget | printed p. 12 |
| $326,600 | Proposed contract with Raftelis for a citywide performance-measurement framework and operational assessments. Council vote not verified; minutes not posted. | 2026-09-22 | city reported | p. 1 of 5 |
Our reasoning
Only items marked “Our position” are used to judge alignment. Provisional directions guide research; open questions are compared, never scored.
Our position
Recurring costs should be paid with recurring money; one-time money should pay for one-time costs or a bridge with a stated end.
- Why we expect it to help
- Matching recurring costs to recurring revenue keeps services from depending on reserves or windfalls that run out, so restored services are not cut again when a bridge ends.
- Evidence and its limits
- The FY 2026-27 plan relied on a one-time reserve bridge and on new revenue that is still projected; parking and ambulance estimates were revised within months.
- What it depends on
- Holds when revenue estimates are realistic. A short bridge during a planned transition can be prudent if its end date and replacement revenue are named.
- Who bears the costs
- Balancing faster can mean earlier service cuts or new taxes; balancing slower spends reserves the city may need for shocks such as new settlements.
- What would change our view
- Evidence that a longer bridge produced durable revenue without drawing reserves below policy levels, or that faster balancing caused lasting harm to services.
Our position
Budgets and proposals should state full costs, including benefits, debt, liabilities and costs shifted to other funds or to ratepayers.
- Why we expect it to help
- Full costs let residents and councilmembers compare options fairly and stop costs from moving out of sight into other funds or later years.
- Evidence and its limits
- Settlements were paid partly by drawing on the Housing Trust Fund and the Water Fund; open claims carry no accrued liability; gross ambulance receipts are not net of the service's costs.
- What it depends on
- Applies to new spending, tax changes and savings claims alike, at a level of detail proportionate to the decision.
- Who bears the costs
- Full-cost analysis takes staff time and can make worthwhile programs look expensive next to options whose costs are harder to see.
- What would change our view
- Evidence that full-cost requirements delayed decisions without improving them, or that simpler measures predicted costs as well.
Our position
Projections, estimates, adopted amounts, actual receipts and audited results should be labeled for what they are.
- Why we expect it to help
- Clear labels let readers tell a funded commitment from an assumption, and let council see when a revenue plan is slipping.
- Evidence and its limits
- City reports have described projected revenue as secured, and the city's reserve figures for FY 2026-27 differ between March and May 2026.
- What it depends on
- Applies to city reporting and to candidates' claims about city finances.
- Who bears the costs
- More labeling and caveats can make reports longer and harder to read.
- What would change our view
- Evidence that residents and decision-makers understand unlabeled figures as well as labeled ones.
Our position
Spending should be linked to outcomes, with dates, owners and actual results published where residents can find them.
- Why we expect it to help
- Published outcomes and actuals let residents and council see which programs work and adjust the ones that do not.
- Evidence and its limits
- The Realignment scorecard separates outputs from outcomes but shows some budgeted values in actual-result columns and covers only Realignment commitments; the city proposed a citywide framework in September 2026.
- What it depends on
- Measures must reflect results residents experience, not only activity counts, and must be updated on a stated schedule.
- Who bears the costs
- Measurement costs money and staff time, and narrow targets can distort work toward what is counted.
- What would change our view
- Evidence that public reporting did not change decisions or results, or that its cost outweighed what it revealed.
Provisional direction
Distinguish credible funding from optimistic assumptions: a proposal that adds spending or cuts revenue should name its funding or the offsetting cut.
Provisional direction
Because most of the General Fund is committed, a savings claim should name the program and the amount.
Provisional direction
Judge water and climate spending by resilience and emissions outcomes, with costs to ratepayers stated, rather than by spending totals or savings alone.
Open question
How quickly to end the use of reserves to balance the General Fund.
Open question
Whether to close future shortfalls mainly with new revenue, spending cuts or a mix.
Open question
Whether spending reviews should be targeted, as the city's are now, or zero-based.
Open question
Whether residents should pay less than visitors for city services and parking, and how lost revenue would be replaced.
Open question
How to weigh water, wastewater and refuse rate stability against the pace of investment in local supply and infrastructure.
Open question
Measures ES and TT on the November 3, 2026 ballot. We explain both and take no position.
Open question
How far local ethics, disclosure, recusal and meeting rules (including public comment and the timing of major votes) should go beyond state law.
Evidence still missing
- Adopted revenue ($509.5 million1) and operating spending ($525.2 million): the documents reviewed do not show every item connecting them. We show the two adopted totals side by side and publish no gap figure until city Finance answers.
- Parcel tax: the October 2025 plan counted $6.0 million23 from a city parcel tax that was dropped in January 2026. We do not say what replaced it until Finance answers.
- Reserve use in FY 2026-27: $24.7 million8 in the March forecast versus $4.67 million9 in the May budget report. We say the budget uses one-time reserves without giving a single figure.
- Benefit costs: pension, health, retiree health and workers' compensation are estimated from citywide percentages. The committed share appears as a range labeled as our estimate, and so does the cost of the 2027 raises.
- Revenue actuals: receipts from parking, ambulance billing, fees and digital signs are projections; audited FY 2025-26 results are expected around March 2027. New revenues are labeled as projections, never as money received.
- Scorecard and recent votes: the current scorecard was not re-checked, and the Raftelis contract, the SMART grant resolution and the September 8 school-agreement request are not verified. We describe the April 2026 scorecard and call each of those items proposed.
- Settlements: the audit's litigation note gives a different total and plaintiff count, open-claim exposure is unknown, and the adopted fiscal-distress text was not obtained. We give the gross total and our net calculation, and no exposure figure.
- School agreement term: the staff report says indefinite with fifteen years' notice; the minutes record a revised 10-year extension. We say the term is uncertain, which affects how long that payment stays committed.
- Restricted funds: Big Blue Bus grant restrictions, where the Measure V fund's transfer goes, and the legal basis for enterprise restrictions. We call the bus balance a question, not idle money, and describe enterprise funds as restricted by city policy.
- Environment: the latest emissions inventory, the current local share of water supply and any revised self-sufficiency date. We report these as not located rather than missing.
How the candidate findings were made
Status: Draft: not yet second-graded and not yet sent to campaigns for reply. As of 2026-10-02.
Scored blind first: statements were coded and stripped of names before scoring, then names were restored and checked against council votes.
Source window: campaign websites archived September 27, 2026, and, for candidates who have served on the council, votes in council minutes. Official ballot statements, questionnaires and forums have not yet been collected for anyone.
Quality is five standards scored 0–3 (Strong 11–15, Adequate 7–10, Thin 3–6). Alignment is High, Medium, Low or Not gradable against the positions above and our three values. See the full rubric.
Back to City finances and accountability · All research notes and method