I’m a big fan of fiscal responsibility.

I know that every dollar City Hall spends came from someone who worked hard to earn it. I hold deep respect for the money earned by our community that goes to fund the city’s budget. As a small business owner, I expect every dollar I spend to provide a measurable result. I believe our tax dollars should be held to the same standard. 

Our city funds deserve the same care and discipline citizens use when managing their own household budgets. Plain and simple. 

The important distinction is that a city can't literally run its budget like a household or business. Some expenses are legally required, some are contractual, and some services have long-term infrastructure implications.

I would approach a structural city deficit like this:

1. Stop treating the General Fund as the debit card

If recurring expenses exceed recurring revenues, using reserves to cover the difference is not a solution. Reserves are there for emergencies, economic downturns and one-time needs, not to permanently subsidize an operating deficit. What would we stop doing if we couldn't reach into the General Fund to pay for it?

2. Put every expense on the table

I'd want staff to categorize expenditures into something like:

• Essential: Core services we legally or practically must provide.

• High-value: Services that directly and measurably contribute to safety, quality of life or economic vitality.

• Nice-to-have: Valuable programs, but not essential.

• Could be done differently: Services that might be delivered more efficiently through technology, partnerships, outsourcing or a different structure.

• Stop: Spending that no longer makes sense given our financial position.

3. Ask “Is this still necessary?” rather than “Can we afford it?”

This is the biggest philosophical difference. When money is tight, governments can fall into incremental budgeting: We spent $X last year, so let's budget $X plus 3% this year. I'd want every department to justify its baseline.

If we were building the city budget from scratch today, would we choose to spend this money? If the answer is no, that's something worth examining.

4. Protect the things that make Wilsonville worth living in

Spend intentionally. We want to protect core services, public safety, parks, infrastructure and the community assets that make Wilsonville special while being willing to question programs and expenditures that aren't producing enough value. And I'd be particularly interested in whether we're spending money on things that don't advance the city's priorities simply because we've always done them.

5. Make the tradeoffs visible to the public

Instead of simply saying, “We're cutting $2 million,” residents should be able to see: Here's the problem → Here's what we're spending → Here's what we're considering changing → Here's what it saves → Here's what residents will experience → Here's why we believe it's the best choice. People can disagree about the choices. But they should be able to see the choices.