McMinnville budget committee agrees to keep account-level detail, set May window for FY26–27 budget

McMinnville Finance Director Katie Henry said the joint budget committee work session was intended to help staff configure new budget software and set expectations for how the city presents its FY26–27 proposed budget.

"The biggest, however, is to allow for public review and input. That is a must at all steps in the budget process," Henry told the 14-member budget committee, citing Oregon budget law (ORS 294) and describing the standard steps: appoint a budget officer, prepare a proposed budget, hold budget committee meetings, and adopt the budget and tax rate.

The discussion focused on three practical questions: how many budget meetings the committee wants, the meeting dates and timing, and the level of detail shown in the budget document. Henry asked members to submit clear, prioritized questions by established deadlines so staff can respond equitably and within available time. "When you ask questions of us, if you can be very clear and ask specific questions…give us page numbers in the budget document," she said, and added that staff would ask members to "rank your questions in order of priority."

Committee members debated whether to publish the full general ledger line items (the current practice) or to show a rolled-up version (personnel, materials and services, capital outlay, debt service and transfers). Councilor Tikalski said the very granular detail can overwhelm readers but also asked for something more detailed than a single personnel-services line: "I don't need to know that detectives in the police department have $42 per month to spend on clothing," Tikalski said, advocating for an "in between" option that preserves useful transparency without needless lines.

Several councilors, including Councilor Cunningham and Councilor Peralta, favored retaining the line-item detail so they can spot year-over-year variances and drivers of cost. Henry proposed a compromise: keep account-level detail available in the system and explore rolling fringe benefits into a single "benefits/fringe" line to reduce volume. She also said staff can produce an appendix or downloadable detailed report for readers who want the full GL breakout, though the printed budget book's layout may limit how the detailed report appears in the printed packet.

On schedule, staff explained the constraints of the pre-budget process and said the earliest the committee can reliably receive the budget document is in the May 1–4 window (staff noted May 4 as the earliest practical date). Committee members asked for time to review the materials before the first budget meeting; Henry and others said the law requires the budget be presented at the first budget meeting but that staff can provide it earlier when feasible. Staff recommended four budget committee meetings spaced through mid- to late-May, with 2–3 days between meetings for staff to respond to prioritized questions.

No formal actions or votes were taken during the work session; the meeting was informational. Henry said staff will proceed with configuring the software to present account-level detail with the option to roll up some fringe benefit lines, will propose a draft budget calendar for early May meetings, and will publish deadlines for prioritized questions so staff responses can be scheduled.

What’s next: staff will finish setup of the new budget software, train department heads, produce a draft calendar for the committee and publish question deadlines. Committee members asked staff to try to provide the budget materials within the May 1–4 window and to publish a short, user-friendly summary for the public with an attached appendix or link to full line-item detail.