Santa Ana council weighs $13M in cuts and a $4M push for Washington Square Park as staff trims youth programs

City leaders on May 20 reviewed a draft fiscal 2026‑27 budget that would close about $13 million in shortfalls through a mix of vacancy eliminations, part‑time reductions and program changes, while preserving required reserves and avoiding full‑time layoffs.

The presentation from Planning Director Lehi Trudida and finance staff showed the package uses recurring revenue adjustments, $2.3 million in savings from eliminating 20 vacant full‑time positions and $2.6 million by trimming part‑time funding, along with changes to fees and non‑mandated commissions. The draft includes a proposal to reshape the PAL after‑school program — which staff said now serves 87 children in intensive on‑site programming — into a lower‑cost model that would emphasize athletics, mentoring and partnerships with parks, libraries and schools; staff estimated $471,000 in recurring savings while expanding some services to roughly 2,200 children.

"The draft general fund budget is balanced with recurring spending supported by recurring revenue," the planning director told the council, adding staff reserved about $3 million in one‑time resources for council priorities.

Councilmembers pressed staff for detailed breakdowns. "I don't like cutting programs for youth at all," Mayor said, while requesting a line‑item explanation of the $5,400 per‑child figure staff used to calculate savings. City staff said the higher per‑child cost largely reflected three full‑time site positions and program supplies for the small, intensive after‑school cohort, and that the intent is to preserve youth services by shifting delivery to lower‑cost settings.

The biggest one‑time choice before the council was whether to set aside $4 million to acquire irregularly shaped privately owned parcels for what proponents describe as the long‑requested Washington Square Park (Option 1), or to spread roughly $3 million across citywide capital needs — sidewalks, lighting, park improvements and trail cameras (Option 2). Staff showed available funding would mix general fund one‑time money, approximately $800,000 in A&D (development impact) funds restricted to the park district and $200,000 from cannabis youth/enforcement funds.

"We need to be creative," Councilmember Vasquez said, urging staff to explore land swaps and affordable‑housing partnerships to make a park purchase feasible without sacrificing other neighborhood needs. Councilmember Becerra said he supported a park but warned that committing $4 million without full due diligence and negotiation risked overpaying.

Several councilmembers favored Option 2 for broader infrastructure and safety investments given fiscal limits. "Option 2 addresses multiple resident-facing safety and infrastructure needs across the city," Councilmember Lopez said, arguing the city should prioritize projects (sidewalks, cameras, street lights) that benefit more neighborhoods. Staff said they could hold a set‑aside and return with refined options and implementation plans, including potential land‑swap strategies.

The draft budget also proposes dissolving five non‑mandated commissions and redirecting some responsibilities to existing bodies to realize staffing savings; staff emphasized many commissions had low quorum attendance and that work could be absorbed by other committees.

Next steps: staff will return with additional detail on park due diligence, a breakdown of PAL program costs and the particular part‑time positions targeted for reductions before the public hearing and final budget adoption in June.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 3200; topfinish SEG 4550