Ojai committee reviews FY 2026–27 budget draft amid staffing, trolley and reserve questions

Finance staff presented an initial review of Ojai City’s proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget at the June 2 Finance & Budget Committee meeting, highlighting revenue projections, a placeholder 3.7% cost-of-living adjustment and an estimated general-fund ending balance of about $21.7 million.

Finance Director Cho told the committee the draft projects sales tax receipts rising to roughly $2.5 million next year and forecasted secured and unsecured property tax receipts near $2.66 million for FY 2026–27, while transit occupancy tax trends were expected to push that revenue to around $8.1 million for the general fund (about $12.16 million including Measure C). Cho said the department adjusted presentation details based on prior committee feedback and removed a previously budgeted fee study and a $2 million ERF grant placeholder.

The draft includes a 3.7% COLA placeholder, which staff estimated at roughly $200,000. Cho said: "This version includes a placeholder of a 3.7% COLA which is a fiscal impact of approximately $200,000." Committee members asked for a one‑page positions summary showing full-time equivalents, salaries and benefits by department to make it easier to see how converting part-time positions to full-time would affect long-term payroll liabilities.

Public commenter Mr. Miley questioned apparent discrepancies in the trolley/local transportation fund charts and asked why the proposed budget showed fewer full-time trolley positions and higher part-time wages. City Manager Harvey replied the difference largely stemmed from prior budgets not matching actual spending and limited employee take-up of full-time benefit offers: "We have one taker of full-time and one of three quarter time with benefits and the rest declined," Harvey said, and added that vehicle availability — not just staffing — limits how many trips the city can run.

Committee members examined unallocated fund balance and suggested options for using excess funds: earmarking resources for planned fire mitigation, accelerating capital projects if savings materialize, or prepaying pension liabilities. Several members recommended a layered reserve policy to distinguish cash-flow reserves, emergency funds and earmarked project balances; staff said a reserve-policy review would be scheduled later this summer.

Staff also said budget line‑item groupings can cause apparent discrepancies (for example, a $2.4 million line cited in the presentation versus a $4.2 million property‑tax total listed elsewhere reflects different combinations of related line items and transfer‑ins) and pledged to reconcile the display for council review.

No formal budget adoption or vote occurred in committee; the item will proceed to council for decision in the coming weeks.