Council reviews second-quarter finances; calls for clearer "other" revenue breakdowns

Sarah Kaczmarek, the presenter of the city’s second-quarter budget update, told the Goldendale City Council the city had collected 48.2% of its 2025 budgeted revenue through June and was at about 46.8% of budgeted general fund expenditures. “The revenue you’ve collected this year is 48.2% of the budget,” Kaczmarek said.

Councilmembers pressed for clearer reporting on categories labeled “other” or “miscellaneous,” and for reallocation or consolidation of line items that no longer reflect current projects. Councilmember Danielle Covington asked why fines and penalties were budgeted at $30,000 when year-to-date collections were much lower; Kaczmarek explained the budget reflects an annual estimate and that midyear adjustments for 2026 are being made.

Kaczmarek walked the council through notable fund differences: utility fund revenue at roughly 54% of budget this year versus about 28.9% at the same point in 2024; actual general fund expenditures up nearly 20% from the prior year largely because of an airport fuel-system item and modest law-enforcement increases; and capital expenditures timing that made some percent-of-budget figures appear misleading. She said certain capital budgets were lower this year because last year included bigger one-time capital contributions.

Council discussion produced three concrete requests for staff: (1) break out and explain items labeled “other” or “miscellaneous,” at least for amounts over $500,000 and for any large transfers from the general fund; (2) combine completed or duplicative street-project line items (for example, Byers and Darling streets) to streamline reporting; and (3) correct an apparent hard-coded percent (a capital-expenditure line that showed 100% and should have read 11.93%) and recirculate corrected summary numbers. Kaczmarek agreed to provide a more detailed ledger printout and follow-up email with per-fund breakdowns on items the council requested.

Councilmembers also asked for clarity on single, large line items flagged during the review: city beautification (a previously budgeted $638,000 line that no one could explain as-spent and which staff said may have been misallocated), the EV charging‑station outlay (staff said an expected 100% grant would reimburse nearly all costs but a final contractor invoice of about $25,000 remained outstanding), and airport fuel-system expenditures (staff agreed to send a fund-by-fund revenue/expenditure breakout for the airport so the council could see how much was spent from the general fund versus fuel sales).

Kaczmarek said her department relies on the city’s financial software, which maps some categories to the state auditor’s BARS reporting structure; she offered to expand line-detail where the council wanted it and to put clearer source notes (for example, “transfer from general fund”) in future reports.

The discussion concluded with the budget takeaway the council asked staff to implement for quarter three: expanded detail for “other/miscellaneous” lines above the threshold, consolidation of completed street projects in reporting, and explicit labeling of transfers from the general fund. Kaczmarek said staff would schedule the requested follow-up materials and a budget-committee workshop ahead of the November preliminary budget schedule.

The council did not take formal policy votes on these items during the meeting; the items were treated as direction to staff and as budgeting housekeeping ahead of the formal 2026 budget process.