Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Goldendale council reviews 2025 fourth-quarter finances, asks staff to check REIT eligibility
Summary
At its March 16 meeting the Goldendale City Council received a fourth-quarter 2025 budget review showing general fund revenues at about 86% of budget and substantial increases and shortfalls in several enterprise and special funds; council asked staff to follow up on REIT 2 eligibility and related cost/benefit estimates.
The Goldendale City Council received a fourth-quarter 2025 budget review on March 16 that showed overall revenue growth but mixed fund performance and several items for staff follow-up.
Sarah Kaczmarek, the presenter for the quarter, told the council the general fund collected roughly 86% of its budgeted revenue — an increase from about 83% the prior year — and that actual revenues rose just under 14%, driven by property taxes and business-and-occupation receipts plus some state and federal grants. She reported general fund expenditures ran about 90.99% of budget, slightly higher than 2024.
The council pressed staff for line-item details. Kaczmarek identified a new airport expenditure (an airport fuel system) that contributed to increased spending this year but said the airport property purchase budgeted earlier remains pending. She also explained $11,270 of the $13,000 animal-control expenditures were an insurance allocation split across departments, with only about $1,700 recorded as professional services and $105 in operating supplies; a council member added that some animal-control costs historically covered euthanasia and veterinary care.
Council members focused questions on real estate excise tax (REIT) policy. Kaczmarek said Goldendale currently collects REIT 1 (0.25%) and recorded roughly $54,280 year-to-date in the capital improvement fund, but does not qualify for REIT 2 (an additional 0.25%) because REIT 2 requires participation as a fully planning Growth Management Act city; Goldendale is a partially planning GMA city. She cited RCW 35.43.040 (state law governing use of real-estate excise tax proceeds) and offered to forward her research and the county contact information for further review.
The presentation also covered other funds: the utility (water/sewer) fund took in about $6.6 million — above budget — and the street fund registered a large revenue swing tied to county reimbursements and a chip-seal project. Kaczmarek cautioned that reimbursements timing created a temporary streets deficit but expected receipts to arrive. She noted the city’s COVID-related reserve balances and recommended continuing to track those unrestricted reserves as the council balances near-term deficits.
The council asked staff to break out airport revenues and to return with follow-up analyses on missed grants, REIT qualification costs versus additional REIT revenue, and separate presentation line items. Kaczmarek agreed to provide the requested detail.
