Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Key takeaways:
- Swimmers ask council to find another way to cover Yost Pool expenses.
- Council discusses mid-biennial budget adjustments but more work to do.
- Councilmembers approve North Bowl Hub rezone, Comprehensive Plan amendments.
- Discussion on another levy lid lift postponed.
Members of Cascade Swim Club filled the Edmonds City Council chamber Tuesday night to air their concerns about a proposal to bill the club for an additional $83,500 for use of City-owned Yost Pool — part of the council’s effort to find budget savings during its 2025-26 mid-biennial budget review.
Under a partnership with the City, Cascade now pays Edmonds $102,000 annually, which allows the swim club to use the pool for team practices and related swim club programs. The club is also required to provide public access to the pool and be responsible for day-to-day operations. The city, meanwhile, covers utility fees, chemical supplies, capital expenses and mechanical operations. It also provides staff for day-to-day maintenance of pool chemicals and weekly filter cleaning.
It costs the City $267,000 annually to operate the pool. The idea of having the swim club pay more came out of a Council budget workshop in November to make biennial budget adjustments. The idea was to split the remaining balance of $163,000 — after Cascade’s contracted payment of $102,000 — and ask Cascade to find a way to cover the other half.
(Councilmember Vivian Olson noted later in the meeting that the council’s intent was not to assume the club would cover the entire cost, but instead to consider fundraisers or other types of community support. She also pledged to assist with such efforts.)
Speakers of all ages came to the podium Tuesday night, pointing out the hardship such an ask would create for the nonprofit swim club and asking the council to find other ways to address the city’s budget challenges.
Cascade Board Vice President Max Effgen said the swim club provides Edmonds residents with a range of swimming programs and Red Cross trainings, along with staffing for year-round access to the pool serving “thousands of families.” (Before Cascade took over, the pool was only open in the summer.) The club won’t be able to absorb the additional cost, which amounts to an 82% increase, Effgen said.
Edmonds resident Bruce Wolfe, a freshman in the STEM program at Mountlake Terrace High School, described Yost Pool as “a magical place to be,” calling it “a safe place to gather with our friends. We’re supervised…we learn confidence and we learn grit and determination skills that are necessary for jobs and other avenues at school,” he said.
When it came time for the council to discuss the proposed budget modifications — which include $1.2 million in cuts from City departments following the defeat of the Proposition 1 levy lid lift — Parks and Recreation Director Angie Feser was the first staff member to face questions. Councilmember Chris Eck asked whether there were alternatives to the $83,500 additional charge for Cascade.
Feser began by praising Cascade Swim Club for their work. “Pools are very hard to operate and having lifeguards and staffing, that is really a struggle for many cities, so to have this organization come in and run the operations of the entire pool and do that very successfully is quite a gift and treasure for our community,” she said.
Feser mentioned the possibility of using a portion of the city’s Tree Fund to pay for part of the City’s certified tree arborist — which would free up money to help offset the pool costs.
Councilmembers spent quite a bit of time discussing that option, but City Attorney Jeff Taraday noted that there may be some restrictions in how the Tree Fund can be used. In the end, the council voted 6-1 (Councilmember Will Chen opposed) to direct the City administration to work with Taraday “to confirm the extent to which the Tree Fund is available to supplant the cost of the arborist salary.”
As part of the discussion on the mid-biennial budget amendments, Councilmembers Chen and Michelle Dotsch advocated for the idea of using the 2025 budget as a baseline for discussing the amendments, instead of starting with the council’s already approved 2025-26 biennial budget. “I think there’s so many moving pieces right now that we really should start with what we know, and then what’s happened, you know, in this year that is identified,” Dotsch said.
One example Dotsch pointed to was the fact the city is no longer paying for fire services and EMS services, now that taxpayers are footing the bill for the Regional Fire Authority (RFA).
Councilmember Olson replied that the City won’t have extra money left over following the RFA annexation vote in April. The City for years had been using one-time funds — from operating reserves, American Rescue Plan Act funds and in the case of 2025, a utility interfund loan — to pay the fire contract, “instead of it being organically recurring revenue,” Olson said.
City Attorney Taraday reminded the Council that it already has an adopted biennial budget that it completed at the end of 2024. “You don’t have the revenue that you thought you were going to have, and so the question is, what about your 2026 budget? Do you want to change in light of the fact you are short the revenue that you had built into that budget?” he asked.
Chen’s motion to direct staff to rework the 2025-26 budget, using 2025 as a reference, was defeated 5-2, with Chen and Dotsch voting yes.
Dotsch also asked about the City’s ability transfer money from its internal service fund to the general fund. The City uses the internal service fund — paid through the general fund — to cover future goods and services needs of City departments (vehicle fleet purchases and technology hardware are two examples). Dotsch made a motion, seconded by Chen, to reduce the general fund’s contributions to the internal service fund in 2026 by 50%, “and to have staff determine how much money is freed up by that.”
Olson said that while she couldn’t support the motion, she did wonder if it made sense to delay general fund payments into the internal service fund “for that first quarter [of 2026], when we’re looking at being so cash strapped.”
Council President Tibbott said if councilmembers want to pursue a reallocation strategy, they should “look at every fund out there, including the Marsh fund, REET funds, flower funds, we need to…dig through everything if we’re going to start reallocating funds.”
Dotsch replied that the budget conversation “is all about reallocating funds,” then added that “going in for a temporary utility tax is reallocating from people’s pockets elsewhere,” referring to the council’s decision last week to approve a 20% utility tax for 18 months. “Just because the money goes in there doesn’t mean it’s where it needs to be,” Dotsch said.
The council ended up voting 2-5 (Dotsch and Chen supporting) against the motion regarding the internal service fund.
Although the meeting was extended several times beyond the usual ending time of 9 p.m., councilmembers did not have the votes to go beyond 10:15 p.m. As a result, only a few questions were asked of other department directors, although Tibbott invited the council to send additional questions in writing the council assistant, who will compile them and submit to the directors for answers. A council discussion regarding a levy lid lift with a review of a draft resolution and a Transportation Benefit District sales tax increase were deferred to a future meeting (possibly later this week).
The council also took up the confusion surrounding the 20% utility tax on water, sewer and stormwater, which it passed with the goal of raising $3.2 million. Residents had been asking how the motion was made and recorded, and whether it was a valid ordinance. There were also concerns about the ordinance itself since it included blanks to be filled in after the vote — not just water, sewer and stormwater (subsections F, H and I), but also solid waste (subsection G).
City Attorney Taraday provided a recap of how the motion was introduced and considered, including key points with video timestamps during the discussion and ultimate vote. The city attorney said the meeting recording confirms the council approved a 20% utility tax rate for subsections F, H and I but made no motion regarding subsection G, leaving the solid waste utility tax rate unchanged.
The council did approve two items during Tuesday’s meeting:
- An ordinance adopting the 2025 amendments to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
- A rezone of North Bowl Hub properties to low density residential 1.
I attended the meeting last night. Every Edmonds resident should attend a meeting to get an idea of what they have for a council, mayor, and directors in the city. I left disappointed, not about the future of Yost pool, but the inability of our elected leaders and directors to problem solve. The Yost pool issue took way too long to discuss, and it’s still not resolved. The city attorney cautioned the council on some of the ideas that were being floated, all were obviously questionable and almost look desperate. What kind of amazed me was how much time was spent on an $80k issue when the city is facing budget issues in the millions of dollars.
As for the future of Yost pool, I believe a path will be found to keep it open. I firmly believe the city council needs an Edmonds resident advisory board/panel. There is no good reason why this should be needed, but if you witnessed what I experienced last night, you may feeling the same way I do.
On your prodding Mr Goodman I watched the video rerun of the council and staff’s discussion of the subsidy the city gives Cascade Swim Club, the question of the parks dept budget increase in 2026 that Councilmember Chen asked and did not get an answer for, Councilmember Olson’s personal pledge of $500 to be spent for the swimming pool costs, and the multiple page references to meeting packets that were ‘the old packet’, and ‘the pdf packet’, and ‘the second packet’. It was not the financial management work that I expect of the elected officials (and I have spent hundreds of hours observing council meetings and reading the city’s financial documents.) I compliment you on being so polite in your reader comment here.
How does this add up? In 2025, Yost Pool stayed open thanks to Cascade’s annual payment, but now, despite a larger Parks Department budget for 2026, the city claims it needs an extra $86,500 to keep the pool running. That doesn’t make sense. This is exactly what CM Chen and CM Dotsch are highlighting: the city’s 2026 budget is set to rise by about 15% over 2025, yet officials are talking about “cuts.” That narrative is misleading, if not manipulative.
The inconsistency is even more frustrating. Yesterday, the Parks Director and Council suggested using the Tree Fund to cover some of the $86,500 shortfall—a fund-balancing tactic they refused to consider last week because it was “administratively burdensome” and instead ramrodded through a 100% utility tax hike. Apparently, creative fund transfers are “responsible budgeting” only when it fits their story.
This selective reasoning erodes public trust. Residents are being asked to accept higher taxes while being told there are “cuts,” even as the overall budget grows. Viable alternatives, like reallocating from overfunded accounts, are ignored until politically convenient.
Edmonds has a credibility problem. Until the Council stops playing word games with “cuts” and starts practicing consistent, transparent budgeting, residents and businesses will continue to question every tax increase and every spending decision.
Folks – read above. read a 2nd time. Jim has spent countless hours reviewing our cities budgetary documents. Please come together to demand a ‘citizen budget committee’ as recommended by Mayor Rosen’s Blue Ribbon Panel (see links below).
Let’s balance out this committee with the likes of Jim Ogonowski (‘No’ levy proponent) & Niall McShane (‘Yes’ levy proponent). Feel free to make additional committee recommendations, both the ‘Yes’ & ‘No’ sides. We want people who are willing to educate the rest of us on these sometimes complicated, always opaque budget issues.
Shout out to the swim team members, takes courage to standup in speak your mind at city hall.
#Blue Ribbon Panel links below – please read. You don’t have to believe me, believe the Mayor’s financial experts.
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Strategic%20Approach%20to%20Fiscal%20Resilence%20for%20the%20City%20of%20Edmonds%20Final.pdf
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
Nick-
I appreciate your desire be inclusive in the makeup of a new Citizens’ Financial Advisory Committee. And I appreciate your link to the Blue Ribbon Panel’s excellent suggestions to improve the budgeting process. However, I have to disagree with your idea to put Neal McShane on the new committee. My problem with adding Neil, or in fact any of the Blue Ribbon Panel members is that they don’t represent nor advocate for the average taxpayer. They never advocated for defeating the tax levy lift. They never criticized the Mayor and the Council members who made terrible decisions on implementing a massive tax levy lift , or the taxrageous RFA annexation. They never advocated to analyze all the excess spending between 2021 and 2025 that the majority of the Council incredibly accepts as the baseline cost of serving Edmonds. They never addressed the affordability issue. These individuals are smart, but they seem to do research to boost their ego rather than direct it toward making Edmonds more affordable. Jim Ogonowski and other KEA financial leaders are committed to reform and change for the benefit of taxpayers. They are doers, not researchers. They would be stalemated by Neil McShane and others. Solution? Start with a small group (4-5) of KeepEdmondsAffordable committee members – and let THEM decide if others should be brought on board.
I believe it’s premature to start attaching names—including my own—to a potential Finance Committee. The first step is for the City Council to acknowledge that such help is needed and genuinely desired. Only then should a formal charter be drafted, and within that charter the process for selecting committee members can be clearly defined.
This comment is objectionable since Bill Krepick is not an Edmonds resident.
In addition to Bill’s remarks, Nick, a distinguished financial city panel ought to consist of nonpartisan, impartial advisors dedicated to identifying genuine solutions. If the panel merely comprises financial sycophants echoing the administration’s narratives, it serves no purpose. We do not require marginal thinkers demonstrating allegiance by uncritically endorsing whatever is presented to them—we already have an excess of that within the City Council. For example, some advocated the now-debunked notion that the majority of the city’s budgetary issues arise from the 1% limit on property tax hikes. In truth, we possess various revenue sources, along with a multitude of cost and income management challenges that significantly surpassed inflation. These justifications appeared to be motivated more by loyalty to the administration than by prudent financial governance.
William and Jim I couldn’t agree more with your well articulated views. I zoomed the meeting last night and was again frustrated by both the action and inaction of the council.
It’s disappointing that the city (we) paid the attorney to clarify the utility tax ordinance. Part of Taraday’s words last night: “So, you know, I didn’t really have any questions myself about what the council’s intent was in adopting the ordinance.” Intent? Ordinances are legal documents with consequences, intended or not. The attorney then went through specific exchanges during the Dec 2 meeting, with some implying 10%, 20% and 100% increases. Additionally the attorney pointed out that during last week’s meeting Mayor Rosen clarified that the motion was to “increase it 10%” and the motion Taraday put on the shared screen that evening was “ordinance in packet with 10% increases in sections F, H and I.
Why couldn’t the council president simply and more inexpensively brought back a complete and clearly worded ordinance for it’s required second reading? Further, why has the ordinance been published in the Daily Herald before it was finalized and prior to the full text being provided to the public?
Transparency and credibility are sorely lacking! Unfortunately tax increases are not.
“The Yost Pool in Edmonds, WA, faced the threat of closure in 2008 due to a financial crisis. However, citizens of Edmonds raised $100,000 to keep the pool open, preventing its closure. The YMCA took over pool operations from 2008 to 2019. In 2019, the pool transitioned to a partnership between the City of Edmonds and Cascade Swim Club, ensuring its continued operation. ”
yostpool.com
Concerned citizens can do this again and raise private funds.
…Just sayin’
Having observed the last two council meetings, it is clear that the addition of a new council member is urgently needed ASAP.
Sorry, when government isn’t being effective, fewer can be better. Five people can reach a decision quicker than 9.
Sorry I think you misunderstood, I wasn’t trying to add more members, I was acknowledging the departure of councilmember Tibbets with a replacement new council member.
If there are “thousands of families (is that 1000, 2000,3000?)” using the pool then have each of them put in their $80 and call it a day. Or why can’t Cascade raise each of their fees by $1? If Cascade cannot afford it then good luck finding an alternative. Just like all of us if we cannot afford something we have to do without. With all the issues on the table for Edmonds why was $83,500 discussed ad nauseam last night? It is the Prop 1 “gotcha” crowd with you are going to lose the pool, the Anderson Center, the parks, and we won’t have enough police to stop all the shoplifting at Winco. How do CM Dotsch and CM Chen sit through these meetings?
Non-profits play an important role, but they aren’t accountable to taxpayers in the same way the City is — and that’s the core issue. Cascade Swim keeps all user-fee revenue, pays the City $102k, and operates with rates lower than neighboring pools. If thousands of families truly use Yost, then a modest, transparent fee adjustment should cover the $83,500 gap without shifting the burden onto the general taxpayer. That’s what households do: align costs with usage. Before the City considers new taxes or cuts, it’s reasonable to expect partners who directly benefit from public assets to modernize their pricing and share operating costs fairly. This isn’t anti-swimmer — it’s basic accountability.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. The City has made it clear through increases and levy asks that they cannot afford subsidies to every community offering and that the cost of those offerings must increase. In the case of the pool, if there are thousands of users, then a modest increase of that fee on a user basis (versus a peanut butter spread tax increase that impacts non-users of an optional (and somewhat discretionary expense) should cover the costs and the burden of that cost is shared by the users in an equitable fashion. I don’t see hours of debate and discussions about a facility that is not self sustained being a fruitful use of time – spreading the cost of the facility to the ysers of the facility is fair and equitable across the entire base of people who use the pool. Treating every facility and offering like an education or school district levy (that arguably benefits every resident) just leads to more taxation and reduced oversight or management of the specific facility. I cannot afford a pool, nor have I or my family used Yost in the 16 or so years that Ii have been here – and Awhile I see community benefit for thousands. I see more benefit in at least managing the facility to a revenue neutral position across the user
Another fiasco of a Council meeting disrespecting taxpayers. The prior reader comments ring so true. Why can’t the Council allow citizens like Jim Ogonowski, Theresa Hollis, Diane Buckshnis, Joe Scordino, Al Compaan, Theresa Hutchison, etc. to ask the questions and to get answers from staff? The Council, with the exception of CM Dotsch and Chen – are simply trying to sweep all spending issues under the rug. Without analyzing all the excess expenditures for 2022 – 2025 no one knows how much excess salary and excess staff are already in the 2026 budget – yet that’s exactly why 5 of the Council members are trying to hide the historic expenses that have bloated the 2026 budget. They refuse to address the real spending issues and just want to raise taxes. It’s really pathetic. The utility tax increase ordinance was a flat out violation of legal protocol – yet the City probably spent several thousand dollars having legal counsel develop and execute the illegal document. Why didn’t CM Olson join CM Dotsch and Chen in asking for a full 5-year historic review of annual spending to develop a zero-based budgeting analysis of 2026? Without that review, the Council is walking away from its fiscal responsibility. They ignore 11,000+ voters and have lost all trust and credibility with the community. Tell them to do their jobs: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enough-utility-tax-increase-is-last-straw
The overlooked part of this equation is that Cascade Swim operates the Pool & collects/keeps all associated fees from the users. They collect all revenues from user fees, entry fees, etc. Everything above their $102k yearly payment is kept by the swim club.
Currently the public swim fees are less than Shoreline, Lynnwood, or MLT.
So instead of putting together a plan for raising the user fees to meet the costs, they send a group of kids to claim that they cannot pay the fees from their own pockets.
Extremely disingenuous on the part of Cascade Swim
Cascade’s role matters here. They collect and keep all user-fee revenue while paying the City $102k, yet their rates remain lower than other regional pools. If operating costs are rising, the logical first step is a transparent adjustment to user fees — not shifting the burden to taxpayers or framing this as an all-or-nothing threat to the pool. Families shouldn’t be put in the middle. This is about basic accountability and making sure those who directly benefit from the facility are contributing proportionately before the City is asked to do more.
The transparency needs to not start with the fees, but the financials of Cascade as a whole. Cascade running the pool has to make financial sense for Cascade and Edmonds. I haven’t seen evidence of the city and Cascade sharing their financial records related to the pool. Both incur pool expenses, Cascade generates revenues from pool operations.
Again, 100% agree. It goes beyond the pool, IMO. Development fees, impact fees, and other fee schemes (in the technical sense if the word) are not supposed to be designed to spread the burden across 40k residents. They are supposed to be designed to eliminate impacts to the 40k residents. Safety nets and Sociial Services require positive or at least neutral revenue generation from all of the optional services the City provides to even remain a reality without additional tax burden to the existing residents. I have struggled with the “everything to everyone” fiscal management structure and have been vocal until frankly, it doesn’t do any good to voice the concern. Folks who use or will have an impact to the other residents should be expected to pay for those impacts – not demand that the other residents be held accountable for the costs. The fact that I or others may be able, at the current time, to absorb a modest tax increase is not justification for ignoring the simplicity of of the solution across user fee based services. If it costs $X dollars to fund the pool then the numerator divided by the denominator of the number of active users becomes the solution – with the alternative being the very large body of calm but cold water just to the West of town.
Thanks as always to Teresa and her team for a great recap! For those wondering about the Cascade Swim Club and their financials, one of the ways nonprofits are accountable to the taxpayer is by the filing of the form 990, which is a nonprofit’s annual tax return. Copies of previous ones are available on several public websites — my favorite database is ProPublica. You can also request them directly from the nonprofit.
I’m a big fan of what’s called cooperative programs, like what we have at Yost Pool, and I hope the city and the swim club can work together to bridge the funding issues!
Thanks, Mary — really thoughtful response, and I appreciate the reminder about 990 transparency. It’s a good accountability tool, and Cascade’s filings are definitely worth a look.
That said, while nonprofit status is important, it’s not a substitute for public oversight when public resources are in play. Yost is a public pool on public land — and right now, the majority of its hours are functionally privatized for one group. That’s not a cooperative model; that’s a public-private imbalance.
If a “cooperative” means shared cost, shared access, and shared benefit, we’re not there yet. Right now, hundreds of Edmonds families can’t get swim access in summer — while a private club gets priority lanes and hours, largely out of public view.
Yes, collaboration is possible — but only if we reset the terms around access, equity, and public return. Otherwise we’re subsidizing exclusivity with taxpayer assets. That’s the core issue.
There are so many routes to figuring out the Yost pool funding issue. It would be good to return to having many more public swim hours. The majority now are for the swim club. When I was a kid a swim club had certain 1-2 hour slots but most of the pool was allocated to public swim, as it should be. With Klahaya having a 500 family wait list, where only about 10-15 families admitted each year due to space availability, I’m sure Yost could capture those families. Klahaya fees are $5K one time fee plus $1500/month. A public pool can’t charge that directly as such but a campaign to fund the pool and figuring out how to offer much more public swim time, which is how it used to be and what Klahaya wait list families want, could help fund Yost. It feels like the majority council and mayor prefer to punish Edmonds residents for voting no on their outrageous 130% property tax rate increase. Honestly if all these staff, mayor and 4 no votes on council can’t figure this out, we are in a crisis of governance. It ain’t this hard. Stop punishing the citizens! Don’t treat us like scolded children and put our assets in time out when we have money! And options! Bah humbug!
Apologies edit: Klahaya fees $1500 annually not monthly in addition to membership fee of $5K
That model is called a private club. Cities fortunately operate, “for the public good” which means the community chooses to support certain services and amenities collectively because the benefits come back to the community collectively, even if not every individual uses them in the same way.
Yes – and the private club is an option. Uber fee based services (for the Developers you support) are meant to absorb costs. Not increase taxes across the entire base. Why should the swim club keep the profit under thw guise of a non-profit (or a not for profit developer for that matter) – or Jeremy is it fair to say that everyone should pay for everything so government can not only solve everyone’s problems but also support everyone’s hobbies (ans the 3.5 direct labor multipliers architects amd engineers charge for their services ti not for profits).
Jeremy, your response misses the point entirely. This isn’t about “private vs. public good.” It’s about using what we already have — public land, public pool, public interest — in a smarter way. Melinda laid out a concrete, compelling case for expanding Yost Pool’s accessibility, learning from real demand (like Klahaya’s 500-family waitlist), and funding the pool creatively. That’s leadership.
The “for the public good” mantra rings hollow when the actual public — families, kids, seniors — are being priced out, locked out, or shut out.
We don’t need lectures. We need action, and we need elected officials who see the public as partners, not obstacles.
Amen. Missing the point is the key concept here. I advocated for the levy whole every single rational bone in my body told.me that it was an irresponsible bail put, packaged in doom and gloom, and marketed as the fix. What it was, and the vote showed it, was an easy out to continue to be an everything for everyone at any cost government model. For some strange reason, it did not pass – and Edmonds was not instantly renamed East St Louis nor did the apocalypse of City failure happen. The problem is complex because of a large number of voices – but the solution is simple because of the absolute small number of viable options. People choose to obfuscate the issue by focusing on the problem – the solution (possibly two or three realistic choices).gets left to pay consultants who will bring back a study that says – modest user fee increase, renegotiated agreement between Cascase and the City, and voila – some consultant gets a 50k check and the 3 or 4 thousand swimmers pay a bit more for open swim. Again, the zero cost alternative that is open to swim clubs and open swim alike is that large body of water directly to the West. That one is paid for and easier to maintain.
Thanks Lee. Yes.
To your point, Jeremy, one could easily argue that Yost operates as a private club, subsidized by the city and the balance paid for by a private swim club. A couple public hours each day is for the actual public. So you’re right – that’s the private club model, and that’s essentially what we have right now. I’m all for a swim club, but right now it’s at the expense of public access. Hence the wait list at Klahaya. People want pool time in the core hours of the day and evening in summer and we don’t have that at Yost. Check the schedule.
Agree the pool hours need changing.
After the tax hike, how will our utility costs compare with surrounding communities?
What you really need is the city selling the pool along with the upgrades and maintenance problems to a private swimming company (if such a thing exists) with that company paying the city and, by extension, the taxpayers for use of the publicly owned land. If each individual swim costs, say $10.00, so be it. If the city wants to give some access to low or no income people, then exchange one day a week for that, for use of the public’s land. For all other free swimming there is the Salish Sea and Lake Ballenger. Since Edmonds is the city of rich people giving away or selling cheap fun stuff, that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.
Hi folks, my last comment on this story. The Yost pool issue is just a small piece of the Edmonds financial issue. The financial problem it is facing, and is frustrating residents, has been cooking for years, if not a decade. I believe the financial problem, foundationally based on questions of city expenses and city revenues, really needs a ground up reconciliation and diagnosis exercise project. A team conducting the project would need to include city administration and directors, some council members and mayor, and based how fired up people are, some residents who have career backgrounds in accounting, organizational planning, and project management. I can go on with next steps, but I think you get the picture of what I’m saying. This exercise will lead to resetting the city to current day conditions and financial needs. It may also answer peoples’ questions about how their tax dollars are spent and hopefully feel better about the budget, and the city should be in a better position to explain in detail why taxes or fees need increase. At some point, I would like to see the city install a process improvement program. Enjoy our great little town during the holidays.
Closing comments now. Thanks to all for your thoughts. — Teresa