Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews FY 2026–27 $4.542 million budget amid questions over beginning balances and audit overruns
Summary
The Shady Cove City Council read Resolution 2605 to adopt a $4,542,000 budget for fiscal 2026–27 and discussed tax and revenue assumptions; public commenters and at least one councilor questioned missing beginning fund balances and large audit-related expenses.
The Shady Cove City Council opened a public hearing on July 11 to consider adoption of the fiscal year 2026–27 budget, presented in Resolution 2605 as a $4,542,000 spending plan with a permanent property tax levy of $190,000 (a rate of 0.5474 per $1,000 of assessed value).
The chair and staff explained that beginning fund balances were not provided in the draft budget because of backlog audits and unreconciled bank reconciliations dating to FY 2022–23 and FY 2023–24. The transcript records the budget committee’s recommendation and the statement that the budget is on file at Shady Cove City Hall, 22451 Highway 62.
Public commenters told the council the lack of an estimated beginning fund balance makes oversight difficult. Sherry Turban, speaking for Shady Cove Matters PAC, said, "Shady Cove has spent over $230,000 on auditors and accounting fees in the past 2 years alone," and urged the council to provide at least an estimated beginning balance rather than leaving reserves undisclosed.
Council members and staff defended the revenue assumptions used in the budget. The chair said transit lodging tax collections through the third quarter total about $60,050 year-to-date and that a $75,000 lodging tax estimate is reasonable. The chair also described how the $118,000 personnel-savings estimate was calculated from projected restructured positions and benefits, saying the reorganization would yield roughly $106,000 in savings from eliminating one position plus other adjustments.
The transcript shows the resolution text was read and motions were offered; however, the meeting record reflects procedural confusion over the sequence of resolutions (the council acknowledged they advanced Resolution 2606 before completing action on 2605). The transcript does not unambiguously record the final roll-call outcome for Resolution 2605 in isolation. The council proceeded later in the meeting to adopt Resolutions 2606 and 2607.
