Westminster reviews FY2026–27 budget; staff lists $1.1M in supplementals and 11 requested positions
June 11, 2026 | Westminster, Orange County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
City staff delivered a detailed study‑session presentation on the proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget at a special June 10 meeting, outlining a $164.5 million total city budget and a $96.7 million general fund. The presentation showed the city’s major funds (water, special revenues, capital and internal service funds), debt and pension trust balances and multiyear reserve projections.
A member of the public, Terry Reigns, urged the council to require concise executive summaries, percent‑variance reporting and workload justifications for supplemental staff requests, and urged the council to vote on supplementals individually rather than as a package.
Staff told the council the proposed budget (without supplementals) would add $1.5 million to reserves and projected an ending FY2026–27 reserve balance of about $55.6 million. Staff also said unspent ARPA funds will be carried into FY26‑27 and must be spent by Dec. 31, 2026.
On personnel and supplemental spending, staff listed 11 proposed new full‑time positions across departments amounting to roughly $1.1 million in fully burdened costs. Requests included a plan checker and two permit technicians for Community Development; two police captain positions and two full‑time parking enforcement officers for the Police Department; a senior finance analyst in Finance; and a lead worker and senior inspector in Public Works. Staff said the costs are shown fully burdened and that some new positions replace or offset vacant or part‑time roles.
Councilmembers pressed staff on vacancy counts (staff said about 24 vacancies citywide), how the supplementals were calculated and whether positions were justified by workload. Staff and the council discussed potential placeholders and options for a civic‑center feasibility study; staff said no specific appropriation exists but a placeholder could be included and that a full feasibility study could cost “a few hundred thousand dollars” depending on scope.
No formal budget adoption occurred at the study session; staff said they would return to the council with requested clarifications and the final proposed budget, scheduled for the June 24 meeting.
What’s next: Staff will provide supplemental justifications and any placeholder amounts for feasibility studies at the June 24 budget adoption hearing. Council did not take action on the budget at the June 10 study session.
A member of the public, Terry Reigns, urged the council to require concise executive summaries, percent‑variance reporting and workload justifications for supplemental staff requests, and urged the council to vote on supplementals individually rather than as a package.
Staff told the council the proposed budget (without supplementals) would add $1.5 million to reserves and projected an ending FY2026–27 reserve balance of about $55.6 million. Staff also said unspent ARPA funds will be carried into FY26‑27 and must be spent by Dec. 31, 2026.
On personnel and supplemental spending, staff listed 11 proposed new full‑time positions across departments amounting to roughly $1.1 million in fully burdened costs. Requests included a plan checker and two permit technicians for Community Development; two police captain positions and two full‑time parking enforcement officers for the Police Department; a senior finance analyst in Finance; and a lead worker and senior inspector in Public Works. Staff said the costs are shown fully burdened and that some new positions replace or offset vacant or part‑time roles.
Councilmembers pressed staff on vacancy counts (staff said about 24 vacancies citywide), how the supplementals were calculated and whether positions were justified by workload. Staff and the council discussed potential placeholders and options for a civic‑center feasibility study; staff said no specific appropriation exists but a placeholder could be included and that a full feasibility study could cost “a few hundred thousand dollars” depending on scope.
No formal budget adoption occurred at the study session; staff said they would return to the council with requested clarifications and the final proposed budget, scheduled for the June 24 meeting.
What’s next: Staff will provide supplemental justifications and any placeholder amounts for feasibility studies at the June 24 budget adoption hearing. Council did not take action on the budget at the June 10 study session.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
