The Issues That Matter
Housing & Affordability
Ending Street Homelessness
Reform of the Tri-City Animal Shelter
It’s Your City.
Expect More.
Pasco City Councilman Leo Perales
Leo Perales is your District 3 Councilman for the great city of Pasco.
Its Your City. Expect More.
Opinions are my own and don’t represent my employer or the city of Pasco.
This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.
🚒 Our firefighters and EMS run toward fires and emergencies. Why would we turn our backs on them?
During Monday’s budget discussion, we heard that the Fire Department is being asked to identify approximately $1 million in additional savings to help preserve existing firefighter positions.
I find that unacceptable.
My proposed levy lid lift included protecting BOTH police and fire. That was my plan, and that’s what I will continue fighting for. If we’re asking residents to approve additional property taxes for public safety, our firefighters and EMS need to be included.
These are the people who respond when your home is burning, a loved one is having a medical emergency, or a serious collision happens on our streets. Their positions should not be left uncertain while we tell the department to find another million dollars.
Should we find efficiencies? Absolutely. Across the ENTIRE city.
Every department, contract, program, and recurring expense should be examined. Finding savings is our responsibility year-round—not a condition our firefighters should have to meet to keep their jobs.
I support working with fire leadership and labor representatives on responsible operational improvements. But those discussions should strengthen our emergency services, with staffing and response capabilities guiding our decisions.
I will continue fighting to include existing firefighter positions in the levy lid lift funding package.
Our police officers and firefighters deserve a comprehensive funding proposal. Our residents deserve reliable emergency services. And taxpayers deserve accountability for every dollar.
Public safety means BOTH police and fire. My position has not changed.
📧 If you feel strongly about including our firefighters and EMS in the levy lid lift—and I know many of you do—email our Council and let them know. Ask them to include funding to preserve existing firefighter positions. Your voice matters.
David Milne: milnecouncil@pasco-wa.gov
Abel Campos: camposcouncil@pasco-wa.gov
Calixto Hernandez: hernandezcouncil@pasco-wa.gov
Mark A. Figueroa: figueroacouncil@pasco-wa.gov
Joe Cotta: cottacouncil@pasco-wa.gov
Charles Grimm: grimmcouncil@pasco-wa.gov
It’s your city. Expect more.
— Leo Perales
Pasco City Council, District 3
Opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the City of Pasco or the Pasco City Council as a whole.
If you listen to the comments made by the city manager and mayor, you will hear why the fire department is not being supported. The new fire station was built on a voted-on bond and staffed by grant money. According to them the stationed should not have been built because the call volume is not there for the need because the development has not happened that they were predicting. What needs to happen (even city manager said should be looked into) is the creation of a fire district with their own taxing structure and own fire commissioners. They can merge with franklin 3 as their districts intertwine with each other and have a large tax base to support calls, and they are always providing mutual aid for each other.
Hire AMR to provide paramedic and ambulance service.
Agree. I told the Mayor so on Veterans Day.
Leo, I agree—protecting police, firefighters and EMS must come first. But I’m tired of more taxes being the answer. Taxpayers are not City Hall’s ATM. Freeze raises for administration and other non-public-safety staff. If we’re funding raises, prioritize the people running toward fires, responding to medical emergencies and protecting our neighborhoods. Examine every contract, cut unnecessary spending and hold city leadership accountable. Asking firefighters to figure out how to save their own jobs while protecting administrative raises would be completely backward. **Families have to live within their means. City Hall should, too. Protect public safety and stop asking taxpayers to fund PERS retirements, rising health costs and pay increases every year!
Why not raise sales taxes instead of property taxes?
Who is turning their backs on ems?
I wish someone down at City Hall could explain to us why we have to spend almost a third of the PWRF reserves to fix a system I'm assuming we paid for to function. Did those components never have a warranty? Did it expire? Do those vendors not stand behind their designs and products? Was it presented with no reasonable expectations of performing as required? I just want to know why the City is held liable for the ~ $18-$20 million dollars repairs and how often that happens down the road. Once all these reserves are spent how do we keep it functioning in the future? WHO will finance those needed adjustments? Can we sell that operation including the land and let those businesses take care of those issues themselves?
What about the fire station that was abandoned on road 68 across from McGill’s with all the acreage attached to it? Seems kind of odd that the city can just take it over and use it for whatever they want. Seems like selling that off and putting it back towards the fire department would be a proper thing to do.
Why don't we find out who spent almost or more of a half million dollars on an HR compensation study and never even used the recommendations or whatever that was about? Who is it wanting to spend $53K on a park study for developers that will include an inventory of parks (what? we don't have that info already?) and make recommendations for the inclusion of parks in future developments? (While we are broke already.) Why don't we have the developers foot the bill for that in their proposals? So much money going out the door for things we don't even ever hear about. At least when I hear sirens and see flashing lights I know where those dollars are going. Don't be surprised if voters REJECT the additional taxes requests if we don't start getting some accountability at City Hall first.
📢 PASCO CITY COUNCIL RECAP
Monday, November 9, 2026 | 4½ Hours of Council Business
PUBLIC SAFETY, THE BUDGET, TAXES, AND THE FUTURE OF PASCO!
Monday night’s City Council meeting lasted approximately four and a half hours, with much of that time dedicated to our 2027–2028 biennial budget, proposed service reductions, potential tax increases, and the future of our police and fire departments.
And you know what? That’s exactly what I signed up for.
You’ll never hear me complain about being at a Council meeting until 10:00 or 11:00 at night. We were elected to do a job, ask difficult questions, examine the information presented to us, listen to residents, and make decisions that will affect our community for years to come. If that takes four or five hours, so be it.
Here’s what we discussed and where I stand.
🚒 1. OUR FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THEIR JOBS!
This was one of my biggest concerns during Monday’s budget discussion.
Under the current proposals, the Fire Department is being asked to identify approximately $1 million in additional savings to help preserve existing firefighter positions.
I find that absolutely ridiculous.
Don’t misunderstand me. I believe every City department, including police and fire, should continuously look for operational efficiencies, eliminate unnecessary expenditures, and identify opportunities to save taxpayer dollars.
But making our firefighters’ jobs contingent upon finding approximately $1 million in savings is inexcusable.
We’re talking about firefighters who respond to medical emergencies, structure fires, vehicle collisions, and other life-threatening situations. These are positions that provide essential services to our residents.
We should be looking for savings EVERYWHERE, across every department, contract, program, and operation. Why should the burden of finding those savings fall disproportionately on the very employees we’re supposedly trying to protect?
I support working with fire leadership and our labor representatives to evaluate overtime reductions, alternative deployment models, employee benefit costs, early retirement opportunities, and other operational efficiencies.
But those discussions should be about making the department more efficient, not making existing firefighter positions dependent on achieving a specific savings target.
I WILL CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR OUR FIREFIGHTERS UNTIL THE VERY END.
I will continue advocating to ensure our existing firefighter positions are included in the proposed levy lid lift funding package. I also remain opposed to closing Fire Station 82.
If we’re asking voters to approve additional property taxes to preserve essential public safety services, then I believe those services should include BOTH police and fire.
We cannot call something a public safety funding solution while leaving firefighters’ jobs uncertain.
💰 2. THE BUDGET – SCENARIO 7 AND THE LEVY LID LIFT
City staff presented Scenario 7, another attempt to address our projected budget deficits while restoring certain services and positions that were previously proposed for elimination.
This scenario includes approximately $2.3 million annually from the proposed 0.1% Public Safety Sales Tax, along with a potential voter-approved property tax levy lid lift.
We discussed several levy options, including approximately $0.395, $0.46, and $0.51 per $1,000 of assessed property value.
Staff indicated that a levy lid lift of approximately $0.46 could balance the modeled 2028 budget with a relatively small annual surplus of approximately $113,000.
But does that mean we’ve solved our long-term financial problems? Not necessarily.
I’ve previously proposed evaluating a levy lid lift of approximately $0.51 per $1,000 of assessed property value, which could generate approximately $6.5 million annually based on our estimated assessed valuation.
For perspective, the additional annual cost under that proposal would be approximately:
* $300,000 home: $153 per year
* $400,000 home: $204 per year
* $500,000 home: $255 per year
* $600,000 home: $306 per year
I understand that nobody wants higher taxes. I don’t either, and I recognize that many residents are already struggling with rising costs.
But we also need to acknowledge that maintaining the services our community expects requires sustainable funding.
What I don’t support is asking voters for additional revenue only to return a year or two later with another structural deficit because we failed to address the underlying problem.
My position remains that we need a comprehensive funding proposal that protects our police officers, firefighters, and essential services while requiring greater financial accountability and operational efficiency.
No final levy lid lift amount or ballot proposal was approved during this meeting.
🏛️ 3. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS?
We also spent considerable time discussing proposed reductions and possible restorations throughout the City.
These included code enforcement officers, three street crew positions, a park ranger, Memorial Pool, the Senior Center, parks maintenance, community events, and other programs.
One thing I’ve continued emphasizing is that public safety doesn’t begin and end with police and fire.
Our Public Works employees maintain streets, traffic signals, drinking water systems, and critical infrastructure. Code enforcement addresses neighborhood safety and nuisance issues. Parks and recreation contribute to our community’s quality of life.
We need to examine these departments carefully before making decisions that could have lasting consequences.
We also discussed whether Transportation Benefit District revenues could support street maintenance staffing, whether certain positions could be restored through alternative funding sources, and whether additional cost recovery could reduce pressure on the General Fund.
My goal is to have a fully functioning city, not one where we’re constantly deciding which essential service to eliminate next.
📊 4. FINDING SAVINGS – EVERY DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE
During the meeting, we discussed several possible cost-saving measures, including eliminating or reallocating certain positions, reviewing employee compensation increases, reducing outside consulting costs, and improving how we fund specific services.
Staff indicated that eliminating two code enforcement positions and shifting certain street crew costs to Transportation Benefit District funding could generate approximately $681,000 in General Fund relief.
We also discussed increasing fee cost recovery, which could generate additional revenue.
These are the kinds of options we need to evaluate, but we need to understand the consequences before making final decisions.
I’ve been advocating for a comprehensive, line-by-line review of our budget for months.
We need to examine staffing, contracts, overtime, employee benefits, outside consultants, vacant positions, and every other recurring expense.
That’s also why I’ve proposed establishing a permanent Subcommittee on Budget Efficiency (SOBE) to provide ongoing Council oversight of expenditures, staffing, financial reporting, and operational efficiencies.
Savings should be a citywide responsibility, not a condition placed primarily on firefighters keeping their jobs.
💵 5. THE 2027 FUNDING GAP – ANOTHER CHALLENGE
Another important issue discussed was the timing of potential new revenues.
Even if voters approve a levy lid lift, the property tax revenue would not begin arriving until 2028.
That leaves us with an estimated $5.5 million funding challenge in 2027 that would require temporary solutions.
We discussed potentially using reserves, interfund loans, or other available resources to bridge that gap.
I’ve previously advocated for evaluating our Economic Development Fund and other available financial resources, but any temporary funding must be legally permissible, responsibly structured, and supported by a repayment or long-term funding strategy.
We cannot continue treating one-time money as a permanent solution.
🗣️ 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – RESIDENTS MADE THEIR VOICES HEARD
We heard from numerous residents, firefighters, public safety representatives, and other community members.
The overwhelming message from many speakers was clear: Protect our police officers, protect our firefighters, and don’t close a fire station.
We also heard concerns about taxes, employee compensation, City spending, consultants, long-term financial planning, and the need for greater accountability.
I appreciate everyone who took time out of their evening to participate. Whether you agree with me or not, your voice matters.
🏭 7. PROCESS WATER REUSE FACILITY (PWRF) – RATE INCREASES, FINANCIAL RISK, AND THE FUTURE OF OUR PROCESSORS
We also had another lengthy discussion about the financial challenges facing our Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF).
Staff presented proposed industrial wastewater rate increases of 7% in 2027, 7% in 2028, 7% in 2029, and 6% in 2030, along with approximately $28 million in reserve subsidies to help offset operating costs.
This is on top of the estimated $18–$20 million needed to replace the facility’s nitrogen removal system.
I believe these proposed increases could have a drastic and potentially devastating financial impact on the food processors that depend on this facility. I would not be surprised if one or two processors ultimately decided to leave Pasco because of the increasing costs.
That’s not a prediction of what will happen, but it is a risk I believe we need to take seriously.
These businesses provide jobs, support families, and contribute significantly to our local economy. We cannot simply continue increasing their rates without fully understanding the consequences.
What I find astonishing is that Council appears willing to move forward with the rate increases proposed by the Mayor while we still haven’t received a comprehensive plan from City staff explaining how we’re going to generate additional revenue, reduce operating costs, or make this facility financially sustainable.
Where is the long-term business plan? Where are the additional revenue opportunities? What operational changes are being proposed? And what assurances do we have that we won’t be right back in this position a few years from now?
I also find the City’s approach to financial risk troubling.
During our budget discussions, we’ve heard concerns from staff about the risks associated with utilizing certain reserves to help address our General Fund challenges. Yet we’re simultaneously considering drawing approximately $28 million from PWRF reserves to subsidize operations while imposing additional rate increases on processors.
I recognize these funds have different purposes and financial obligations, but we need a consistent and transparent philosophy regarding spending, reserve utilization, and financial risk management.
We cannot simply characterize the use of reserves as too risky in one discussion without clearly explaining why substantial reserve spending is appropriate in another.
I intend to push for postponing action on these proposed rate increases when this item returns to Council on Monday.
Before moving forward, I want to see a comprehensive financial recovery strategy that includes operational cost reductions, additional revenue opportunities, realistic projections, and a plan to protect the businesses that depend on this facility.
We need to understand the full financial consequences of these decisions, not just for the utility, but for the processors, their employees, and Pasco’s economy.
Raising rates without a credible plan to address the underlying financial problems is not a sustainable long-term strategy.
We need better spending practices, stronger financial oversight, and a more consistent approach to risk management.
And until we have those answers, I believe Council should seriously reconsider moving forward with these increases.
🏗️ 8. OTHER ITEMS DISCUSSED
While the budget dominated the evening, Council also reviewed several other important issues.
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: We discussed recommendations involving tourism funding, Memorial Pool improvements, and potential investments in recreational facilities. These funds have specific legal purposes, and we need to make sure they’re being used to generate meaningful economic activity and tourism benefits.
Road 40 East Extension: We received an update on the project intended to improve traffic circulation and freight movement near the Amazon facilities. Staff reported that design adjustments helped avoid approximately $1 million in utility relocation costs.
Weapons Code Updates: Council reviewed proposed updates to local weapons regulations to align them with existing Washington State law.
2046 Comprehensive Plan: We continued reviewing the City’s long-term planning framework, including housing, transportation, infrastructure, economic development, and future land use.
Unified Development Code & Zoning: We discussed proposed changes to zoning districts, permitting requirements, critical areas regulations, and development standards. These decisions will influence how Pasco grows and how we preserve commercial and industrial opportunities.
I continue to believe that responsible economic development needs to be a major part of our financial recovery strategy.
🇺🇸 MY FINAL THOUGHTS – WE NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT
Monday’s meeting was long, but it was productive, and these are exactly the conversations we should be having.
I didn’t run for City Council because I thought the job would be easy. I ran because I wanted to make a difference, challenge the status quo, and ensure our residents have someone willing to ask difficult questions and fight for responsible decisions.
I will not apologize for asking questions, challenging budget assumptions, or spending four and a half hours doing the job I was elected to do.
And when it comes to our firefighters, my position couldn’t be clearer.
I support finding savings. I support improving efficiencies. I support responsible spending. But I do not support making existing firefighter positions contingent on finding approximately $1 million in savings while we continue discussing other expenditures throughout the City.
Our firefighters deserve better than that.
I will continue fighting to ensure they are included in a comprehensive public safety funding proposal, and I will continue pushing for solutions that protect our police officers, firefighters, Public Works employees, and other essential City services.
And when it comes to the PWRF, I believe we owe our food processors more than another round of rate increases without a comprehensive financial recovery strategy.
We need to stop structural deficit spending, establish sustainable revenue, and make sure every taxpayer dollar is being used responsibly.
We have more work ahead of us, and there will be more difficult decisions to make.
But that’s the job. That’s what I signed up for. And I’ll keep fighting until we get it right.
It’s your city. Expect more.
— Leo Perales
Pasco City Council, District 3
Opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the City of Pasco or the Pasco City Council as a whole.
Why not a sales tax increase instead of a property tax increase?
Thank you Leo!
No new property taxes. Puts burden on property owners and not sharing the burden with all residents.
This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.
🇺🇸 HONORING ALL WHO HAVE SERVED 🇺🇸
Today, we honor the men and women who have worn our nation’s uniform. Their service, courage, and sacrifice deserve our gratitude and our commitment to supporting them long after their military service ends.
To the veterans here in Pasco and across our country: thank you for answering the call, protecting our freedoms, and serving something greater than yourselves. To your families, thank you for the sacrifices you have made alongside them.
As your Councilmember, I’m proud to recognize the veterans who continue to strengthen our community as neighbors, parents, coworkers, and leaders.
We owe you our respect, our gratitude, and our continued support.
Happy Veterans Day. 🇺🇸
— Leo Perales
Pasco City Councilmember, District 3
#VeteransDay #ThankYouVeterans #Pasco
We missed you at today's Veterans Day ceremony held at Volunteer Park. The Mayor attended but other Council members did not. Their failure to attend does not advance their stated support for Veterans.
It's your city.
Expect more.
Support Leo Perales 4 Pasco
All donations go directly to making a difference in our community.
