Santa Fe Springs adopts $114.1 million FY 2026–27 budget and begins transition toward city police department

The Santa Fe Springs City Council on June 2 adopted the fiscal year 2026–27 budget after a detailed presentation by city finance staff and a discussion about public safety, water operations and capital projects. The council voted to approve the operating plan that staff described as an approximately $110–114 million budget, with an adopted baseline figure shown in presentations as $114.1 million.

City officials said shifting off the existing Whittier Police Department contract toward a municipal department drove several elements of the proposed spending. Early in the presentation, a staff speaker (Mr. Belvadilla) said Whittier's contract increases had grown substantially in recent years and would have pushed the city into unsustainable costs; the staff recommendation was to begin a 22‑month transition to a city police department that will require upfront investment but could lower recurring costs over time. "We did our own analysis and figured that we could do it for a lot less," a staff presenter said, describing the financial basis for starting a city PD.

Finance director Julio Morales, who presented the budget detail, told the council the proposed operating budget covered salaries, benefits and operations and reflected conservative revenue assumptions. Morales said salaries and benefits account for roughly $63 million of the budget and described vacancy factors and one‑time reimbursements that affect near‑term projections. He said the city currently holds about $52 million in available operating reserves and allocates roughly $18 million for general‑fund capital projects. "This is the third time that we've talked to the council," Morales said, explaining the revenue assumptions and the schedule for sales‑tax receipts that affect the projection.

Morales also flagged several specific items in the spending plan: approximately $1.4 million in police startup costs (with about $1 million in new startup additions shown in the police line), an extra $2.9 million investment in the PSO (public safety office) program, nearly $454,000 added to homelessness response, and ongoing infrastructure and maintenance investments. On the revenue side, staff pointed to Measure L and other sales‑tax sources, property tax stability and one‑time reimbursements as partial offsets to volatile sales tax receipts.

Council members asked for clarifications about the startup timeline, pension liabilities and how the buyout from the existing contract would be handled. Morales and other staff said some costs are embedded already (cars and equipment owned by the city) but noted potential pension and buyout costs remain to be resolved. The council majority signaled support for the plan; a motion to adopt the budget was moved and seconded and the council voted in favor.

The resolution adopting the budget was approved during the meeting; staff said quarterly updates and midyear adjustments will track revenue performance and any necessary course corrections. The city manager and finance director framed the budget as conservatively constructed but intended to allow strategic investments—especially in public safety and economic development—while preserving reserves.

What happens next: staff will begin implementation steps identified in the adopted budget, including the initial police startup expenditures and routine budget monitoring; council members were told that more specific follow‑up items (pension analysis, contract buyout details) will return to the council as staff refines the transition plan.