Green River staff outline conservative budget strategy, urge council to set priorities as industrial projects loom

City staff told the Green River City Council on May 15 that revenue forecasts remain conservative while the city prepares for possible large industrial developments and several multi‑million dollar capital needs.

At a workshop presentation, a staff member summarized where the city stands on revenues and expenditures and asked the council to help prioritize projects for fiscal years 2026–2032. The presentation covered sales tax trends, enterprise fund performance, sinking funds for large purchases and a proposal to conduct a midyear budget review once June tax receipts are finalized.

City staff said the general fund was projecting about $19 million in revenue and roughly $22 million in expenditures, with an unrestricted fund balance of about $2.8 million and an estimated $465,000 operating shortfall “as of today.” The water fund was described as roughly balanced — about $3.3 million in revenue and $3.2 million in expenditures — while wastewater showed a negative unrestricted balance reported in the audit of about $1.4 million, even though the wastewater fund’s total balance was described as slightly more than $15 million with much of that restricted to property, plant and equipment. The presenter said the wastewater fund ran “about a $700,000 operating loss” last year and that rate changes remain under study.

Staff highlighted a June timeline: the second council meeting in June will include adoption votes for wages, positions, the fee schedule and appropriation resolutions. The presentation said staff will bring sewer, water and stormwater rates forward in that schedule.

Why it matters: several large capital needs — cemetery expansion (estimated roughly $5.5 million), depot rehabilitation (estimated $12–15 million), riverbank stabilization (about $1.8 million) and a potential water‑tank rehabilitation (roughly $3 million) — were listed alongside ongoing needs such as playground replacements and vehicle or equipment sinking funds. Staff warned the council that addressing a broad list of projects could require a substantial share of annual revenues: doing about $1.5 million in road work per year would represent roughly 7.8% of expected annual revenue and about 13% of sales tax receipts.

Staff also described existing sinking funds for things such as fire truck replacement, server replacement and an irrigation‑software purchase. The parks and recreation director said some sinking funds are fully funded and will be available in FY26 for planned purchases, and that other projects will need grant support or newly formed reserves.

On grants and large projects, staff said they had received notice from the state Department of Environmental Quality that the city’s reclamation project for wastewater ponds would qualify for a loan program with a loan‑forgiveness component; staff did not provide a specific forgiveness percentage and described the forgiveness amount as not specified at this time. Staff said they planned a meeting with DEQ in the next month to develop an application to submit in September or October and expected a DEQ decision around January.

Council members pressed staff for clarifications on restricted funds, stormwater accounting and the city’s risk management reserve. Councilwoman Bushman asked whether the solid‑waste legacy funds could be used for formation costs of a new solid‑waste district; staff replied those funds are restricted to post‑closure monitoring and mitigation of the former landfill and cannot be repurposed. Councilwoman Mazur asked for more detail on the risk management fund, which staff said has declined from a prior high of about $1.5 million to approximately $400,000 and that insurance premiums and claims will continue to draw on the balance.

Staff emphasized the city’s conservative approach, noting sales tax variability and that planned industrial projects originally expected to start earlier this year have been delayed. Staff said one recent month’s receipts were about $826,000 and that the sales tax forecast remained cautious pending June receipts.

Staff requested direction from council on which services to prioritize or scale back if the council wants to create new multi‑year sinking funds or accelerate spending on roads and other infrastructure. The presentation proposed using midyear reviews and staged sinking‑fund contributions tied to realized revenues and impact fees from industrial projects.

Looking ahead, staff said they will return with more detailed numbers after June financials are final and recommended additional council goal‑setting sessions to prioritize a multi‑year capital program and any potential service tradeoffs.

Ending: Council did not take formal budget action at the workshop. Staff will return with final June revenue figures, rate recommendations and proposed appropriation resolutions at the June meetings for formal consideration.