Council adopts balanced biannual budget for 2025–27, adds public‑safety positions and contract enforcement help

On June 24 Highland City Council adopted a biannual budget for fiscal years 2025–26 and 2026–27 that staff described as balanced in both years while supporting public‑safety investments.

Carlos, a finance staff member, presented highlights and said the proposed two‑year budget maintains a balanced general fund in both years and reflects direction from multiple finance subcommittee meetings and a May 21 budget study session. He told the council the changes since the study session were limited to previously approved changes to the sheriff’s contract and the Cal Fire contract the council approved earlier in the meeting.

Carlos said the budget shows, for year one, round revenues of $25,800,000 and matching expenditures with a surplus of $8,470; for year two, revenues and expenditures round to $27,700,000 with a surplus of $6,960. He also said the budget includes additions to public‑safety contracts: a previously approved Schedule A to the sheriff’s contract adding one office specialist and three deputy positions (presented as an item in the materials) and a planned addition of two deputies in fiscal year 2026–27 that staff estimated in the presentation would cost $14,500,000. Carlos noted the Cal Fire contract approved earlier was also reflected in the budget materials.

The budget presentation also said the city will add two contract code enforcement officers to provide weekend coverage and backfill as needed; Carlos described those positions as contract services rather than full‑time city hires. The council discussed a comment from the Desert Valley Builder Association and staff reported that the city would not use certain DIF (development impact fee) study funds for the city hall remodel; instead, the remodel will be funded from general fund reserves and DIF‑eligible items will be covered through other DIF‑eligible projects.

Several council members praised staff for multiple finance subcommittee meetings and the level of detail provided. One council member cautioned that the State of California’s budget position could affect local revenues and that the city may need to revisit the budget if the state takes actions that reduce local funding. After discussion, a council member moved to approve the budget, another seconded, and the council approved the resolution by voice vote.

Staff did not provide an exhaustive line‑item cost breakdown during the public hearing; the figures above were presented by staff during the meeting and will be reflected in the budget documents.