Goldendale council hears second-quarter budget report, asks staff for clearer breakdowns and follow-up

Goldendale City Council heard a second-quarter budget update from finance staff and asked for clearer breakdowns of several line items and follow-ups on grant and airport revenue details.

The council’s finance presenter, Sarah Kaczmarek, said the city had collected 48.2% of its budgeted revenue through the second quarter, compared with 49.89% at the same point last year, and noted “overall, that has been a 6% increase,” driven by property taxes and business-and-occupation receipts. She said general-fund expenditures were about 46.8% of budget, up from 42.8% at the same point last year, and that utility-fund expenditures were about 50% of budget this year versus about 26% last year, in part because of timing of capital projects and previous-year capital contributions.

Why it matters: councilmembers said the report as presented made it hard to track large transfers and one-time financing. They asked staff to make “miscellaneous” and “other financing sources” more transparent, consolidate completed street projects in the report, and add an airport-specific revenue/expenditure breakout before the next quarter report so elected officials can see whether general-fund transfers to the airport are being offset by fuel sales.

Most important details

• Revenues and expenditures — Kaczmarek said the city’s revenue collected year-to-date is 48.2% of budget; last year at the same point it was 49.89%. She said total general-fund expenditures year-to-date were roughly $1,900,000 this year versus about $1,600,000 at the same point last year.

• Utility fund and capital timing — Kaczmarek told the council the utility fund budgeted roughly $9,000,000 last year and about $5,300,000 this year (differences driven by anticipated financing sources and capital timing), and that capital spending timing explains why percent-of-budget comparisons vary widely between years.

• Specific line-item questions — Councilmember Danielle Covington asked why fines and penalties were budgeted at $30,000 when year-to-date receipts were only $5,613; Kaczmarek replied that annual budgets cover the whole year and that historical collections have been lower, and said staff is aligning the 2026 budget to historical collections.

• “Other financing sources” — Kaczmarek explained that the city’s financial software reports echo the State Auditor’s Office (BARS) classification, which includes lines called “other financing sources”; she said, for example, that several items coded as other financing were proceeds from a PWTF loan and upgrade revenue tied to the wastewater treatment-plant project. She offered to expand those lines where the council wants more detail.

• Street projects and carryovers — Councilmembers asked whether completed projects (Byers Street) are still showing budgeted amounts. Staff said the line remained because it was included in an earlier approved budget and that it will be removed in next-year budgets; staff also offered to consolidate completed street projects in the reporting if the council prefers a single “street projects” line.

• Small items vs. thresholds — Councilmembers asked for a practical threshold for when staff should expand a line’s detail. The council settled on asking for detailed breakout for any item labeled “other” or “miscellaneous” over $500,000 and said it also wants clarification of transfers from the general fund regardless of size.

Quotes and attribution

“The revenue you’ve collected this year is 48.2% of the budget,” Sarah Kaczmarek said, summarizing second-quarter performance. “Other financing sources… is the upgrade revenue for your W W T P upgrade revenue and then your PWTF loan proceeds.”

“I’m just curious why we budget for $30,000 when it’s so much lower than that,” Councilmember Danielle Covington said about fines and penalties; Kaczmarek answered that the line is budgeted for the year and that staff will align the next budget to historical collections.

“Anything that says miscellaneous or other — we want more clarification on where that’s coming from,” Councilmember Danielle Covington said during the review.

What the council directed (discussion vs. decision)

• Discussion: council asked questions about revenue classification, variances in percent-of-budget figures driven by capital timing, and whether past carryover line items should be removed.

• Directions to staff (not formal votes): expand rollups so “other”/“miscellaneous” and transfers from the general fund are clearer; provide detail on any “other” or “miscellaneous” line over $500,000; combine completed street-project lines (Byers/Darling) in the reports if legally feasible; and prepare a separate airport revenue/expenditure breakout for the next quarter report.

• No formal ordinance, budget amendment, or vote to change allocations occurred during this meeting; staff said proposed changes to report formatting will be implemented in future quarter reports and in preparation for the 2026 budget process.

Context and next steps

Kaczmarek said the city follows the State Auditor’s Office BARS categories when the financial system groups revenues and other financing sources. She also said staff is preparing a budget calendar and upcoming workshops; councilmembers requested that staff present clarifications before the formal 2026 budget hearings to allow more informed decisions about transfers and priorities. Several councilmembers said they want the budget committee and a public workshop in October–November to review details ahead of formal adoption.

Ending note

Councilmembers thanked staff for the presentation and asked for the requested breakout information by the next quarter; staff said it will provide emailed backup detail (including airport fuel sales and capital carryover clarifications) and will schedule the budget committee work and a public workshop in the coming months.