Happening now
Proposed budget · Updated August 22The current City Council is deciding what gets cut.
The proposed 2026–27 budget shows $31.96 million in revenue and $31.94 million in spending, a $19,134 annual surplus. Because the General Fund starts about $9.74 million below zero, its projected year-end balance remains negative $9.72 million. The proposal would also eliminate 74.25 positions, including 29.5 held by current employees, and reduce Parks, Recreation, and Aquatics from 32 positions to 2. These cuts are proposed, not adopted.
Our position
Show what residents would lose before the vote.
Banning faces a serious budget problem. Some cuts may be unavoidable. Before the Council cuts jobs or ends services, residents should see what each cut would save, what would change, and what other options were considered.
Send your own email to the City Council.
Use the draft, change it, and add your story. It opens in your email app, not through this website.
All five Councilmembers are addressed and the City Clerk is copied. This website never receives your name, email, or message.Read the suggested email
Subject: Please show the service impacts before final budget cutsMayor Royce and Councilmembers, I understand Banning faces a serious budget problem and that some cuts may be unavoidable. Before cutting jobs held by current employees or ending services, please publish what each cut would actually save, what residents would lose or see change, and what other options were considered. Please separate vacant positions from layoffs, compare reduced or seasonal service options, and adopt a public recovery plan explaining when services could return. My experience with these services is: [ADD YOUR STORY HERE] Thank you, [YOUR NAME]
Service by service
What the proposed cuts would change.
These are the numbers of positions allowed in the proposed budget. The budget doesn’t say which positions shown here are filled or vacant.
| Service | Positions | What the City says or hasn’t explained |
|---|---|---|
| Parks, Recreation, and Aquatics | 32 to 2 | The City expects less recreation and aquatics programming. |
| Planning and Building Safety | 10 to 4 | The City expects longer review times for building inspections, home remodel permits, business tenant improvements, and development projects. |
| Code Enforcement | 2 to 1 | One position would remain for a city of about 31,852 residents. The budget doesn’t explain the response-time effect. |
| Animal Control | 2 to 1 | The budget doesn’t explain how response times or service coverage would change. |
| Homeless Services and Prevention | 1 to 0 | The Homeless Services Coordinator would be eliminated. The proposal doesn’t identify who would handle outreach, homeless prevention, service coordination, or housing navigation. |
| Police and Dispatch | 57.5 to 40 | The City expects less proactive policing and specialized capacity. |
Three immediate requests
What the Council should show before it votes.
Separate vacancies from layoffs.
Show the 44.75 vacant positions separately from the 29.5 current employee positions. Use vacancy savings first when the math works.
Publish the actual savings and service changes.
Show what the City would actually save after related costs, along with changes to programs, hours, response times, and residents served.
Compare workable alternatives.
Compare full closure with reduced hours, seasonal service, and other legal ways to keep part of a service running.
For residents who want the full recordRead the full budget analysisFigures, impacts, recommendations, questions, and documentsOpen
The numbers
What the City’s proposal says.
Last checked August 22, 2026.
Service impacts
What is clear, and what is still missing.
Staffing changes
- Parks falls from 4 positions to 2.
- Recreation falls from 15 positions to 0.
- Aquatics falls from 13 positions to 0.
- The Homeless Services Coordinator falls from 1 position to 0.
Resident consequences
- Which programs, facilities, and hours would end or change.
- Who would handle homelessness outreach, prevention, housing navigation, and service coordination.
- How long building inspections, remodel permits, and business tenant improvements would take.
- Whether overtime, contracts, or lost fees reduce the savings.
- What reduced, seasonal, or partnership models would cost.
We should not tell residents that every position can be saved. The City should not eliminate a service without showing the full consequence and the real alternatives.
Full recommendations
Seven steps that take the deficit seriously.
The first six can shape this budget or its recovery plan. The seventh is longer-term reform.
Before final action
Show the actual savings and service changes
For every current employee position or service proposed for elimination, publish the expected savings alongside separation costs, overtime, contracting, lost fees, hours, programs, and residents affected.
Before final action
Separate vacancies from layoffs
List the 44.75 vacant positions separately from the 29.5 current employee positions. Use vacancy savings and attrition first when they can save about the same amount without moving costs somewhere else.
Before final action
Compare more than one service option
For Recreation, Aquatics, and other affected services, compare full closure, reduced hours, seasonal operations, fee-supported programs, and other legal ways to keep part of the service running. Show the cost and who would be responsible for each option.
Before final action
Match every dollar to a legal use
Publish a funding matrix showing which costs belong to the General Fund and which may qualify for restricted funds, grants, enterprise funds, or outside support. Capital awards should not be presented as ongoing payroll money.
Before final action
Test who bears the cuts
Map the effects by neighborhood, age, disability, income, heat exposure, and transportation access. When one group or area carries a disproportionate burden, show the mitigation.
Adopt with the budget
Set quarterly recovery and restoration triggers
Track revenue, spending, cash, fund balance, vacancy savings, and service measures every quarter. State in advance what causes another reduction and what conditions allow a service to return.
Longer-term reform
Build permanent financial oversight
Use a rolling five-year forecast, strengthen public Budget and Finance Committee review, rebuild reserves through dated targets, and publish corrective actions until they’re complete.
What we still need to know
Questions before the vote.
- What would the City actually save from each layoff after related costs?
- Which service hours, programs, response times, and residents would be affected?
- Which alternatives were compared, and why were they accepted or rejected?
- Which revenues can the City count on each year, rather than only once?
- What would trigger more cuts, and what conditions would allow services to return?
Original documents
Read the record yourself.
City records come first. Commentary is labeled.
01
FY 2026–27 Proposed Operating Budget
↗02The 294-page City proposal behind the figures on this page.
Council meetings, agendas, packets, and video
↗03Use the official meeting index to confirm dates and follow any revised budget materials.
City transparency materials
↗04Financial reports, audit materials, and the City response record.
Are We Abolishing Parks & Rec.?
↗Chris Castorena’s public analysis of the proposed staffing changes. Commentary, not a City document.
What happens next
This record stays public.
When the City publishes a revision or adopts a budget, we’ll show what changed, which alternatives were considered, how each Councilmember voted, and what the quarterly recovery numbers show.
Neighbor to neighbor
A better Banning takes more than two people.
Read the plan, ask hard questions, and share it with someone on your block.