Community discussion · Practical possibilities

Community Revenue & Funding Ideas

Communities facing financial pressure need more than discussions about what they cannot afford. They also need a place to examine potential new revenue, test its legal and operating economics, and decide which ideas, if any, deserve further work.

Concepts and proposals collected by Karl Ohlemann · Updated Nov 2026

Why this page exists

Ideas deserve scrutiny, not automatic acceptance.

As a resident, I find it difficult to hear repeated concerns about the long-term finances of our towns without also seeing serious examination of possible solutions. Not every idea will be practical, lawful, fair, or worth pursuing. But evaluating a proposal is different from dismissing it without testing the economics.

Through WeHeartCleElumRoslyn, SPC, I've explored and shared concepts intended to raise revenue for local public purposes. This page records those ideas separately from our reporting and commentary on specific development projects. Its purpose is transparency and constructive discussion, not to suggest any proposal has been adopted.

Idea 01 · Visitor-related infrastructure

VisiToll

A feasibility concept for collecting lawful, locally authorized mobility-related charges through technology rather than traditional toll booths or parking meters. The underlying question is whether visitor activity that contributes to road and service costs can help support those public obligations.

Status: Feasibility concept, not an operating program

Potential public value: A new way to fund eligible local transportation or visitor-related costs.
Required checks: Washington legal authority, eligible facilities, exemptions, privacy and data security, technology cost, collection rates, administration, fairness, and restricted uses of proceeds.
Unverified: Whether such a charge is legally available to local governments here, realistic traffic-based net receipts, or whether any municipality would sponsor a pilot.

Explore VisiToll and its illustrative feasibility case ↗

Idea 02 · Community identity and digital naming

Local-name licensing

I control alternative digital naming assets using .cleelum, .roslyn, and .kittitas. I have also presented a concept for licensing future names in these namespaces and offered to direct the resulting revenue to the relevant cities and Kittitas County through WeHeartCleElumRoslyn, SPC, subject to a workable, documented arrangement.

Status: Idea presented; no operating municipal revenue program

Potential public value: Voluntary licensing revenue connected to local place names, if a legitimate market and acceptable legal structure exist.
Required checks: Ownership and licensing rights, name protections, consumer disclosure, compatibility with ordinary web browsers and DNS, administrative costs, actual demand, acceptable payment and accounting arrangements.
Unverified: Market demand, technical interoperability, future gross or net receipts, government acceptance, or a binding revenue-sharing agreement.

The names above refer to alternative naming systems; they should not be mistaken for ordinary ICANN-delegated top-level domains. A proposed revenue contribution is not evidence of a municipal contract or current income.

Idea 03 · Grocery competition and business recruitment

More grocery choice. More reasons to do business here.

For years, residents have raised the need for greater grocery choice in Cle Elum and the surrounding Upper Kittitas County area. Safeway in Cle Elum remains the area's principal conventional full-line supermarket. The independently owned Roslyn Grocery serves the community too, including a larger Suncadia Social location opened in 2026. Recognizing these local businesses and seeking another supermarket are compatible goals: a broader range of formats, products, locations, and price points could benefit residents and visitors alike.

Recruitment efforts, not just a wish list

I own BringTraderJoes.com, BringGroceryOutlet.com, CleElumGrocery.com, and BringYourFranchise.com as potential channels for business outreach and community participation. I have contacted Trader Joe's and the Kittitas County Chamber of Commerce to encourage a closer look at this market. I had hoped to prepare a more comprehensive site-selection proposal, but the necessary regional demand and economic data have not yet been assembled. This is independent resident-led outreach; it is not an announced retailer project, a Chamber-sponsored program, or evidence of a retailer commitment.

Four related domains: BringTraderJoes.com and BringGroceryOutlet.com are prospective retailer-specific proposal and outreach channels; CleElumGrocery.com provides a retailer-neutral home for the wider grocery competition opportunity; and BringYourFranchise.com could help identify restaurant, service, and retail franchise operators interested in underserved markets. Trader Joe's is not a franchise and accepts recommendations for new locations. Other brands may use different real-estate or franchise-development channels. No affiliation with any named retailer is implied.

A specific opportunity to evaluate: Grocery Outlet

BringGroceryOutlet.com is an independently owned domain intended to help present a structured, evidence-based proposal for Grocery Outlet to assess the Upper Kittitas County trade area. No proposal submission, endorsement, or official relationship with Grocery Outlet is implied, and this domain is not presented as a verified live campaign website.

Residents have also expressed interest in a Grocery Outlet in the Cle Elum area. Its value-oriented grocery format deserves a serious look as a potential source of additional price competition and everyday shopping options, alongside Trader Joe's and other prospective grocers. This reflects reported local interest, not the result of a representative survey or confirmation that Grocery Outlet has evaluated or approved a location here.

Grocery Outlet's published real-estate criteria expressly include rural, suburban, and urban locations and generally call for 16,000–18,000 square feet, prominent signage, and proximity to an established retail center. These are useful preliminary screening requirements; they do not establish that a specific Cle Elum site qualifies or that the regional trade area can sustain a store.

Its operating model is also different from both Trader Joe's and a conventional franchise. Grocery Outlet typically selects and develops stores itself, then partners with independent local operators who manage their stores under company agreements. A credible recruitment effort would therefore address Grocery Outlet's corporate real-estate team first, with the prospect of finding a qualified local operator as a related but distinct track. The company publishes regional real-estate contacts, providing a direct starting point without relying solely on general store-request channels.

What would make the case credible?

Retailers evaluate a trade area, not simply a city's population. A serious Upper Kittitas County prospectus should test whether permanent residents, Suncadia and Tumble Creek households, second homes, commuters, visitors, and Interstate 90 traffic support year-round sales at a sustainable level. It should also evaluate existing grocers fairly, potential effects on local independents, available real estate, access, parking, workforce, utilities, and the amount of grocery spending that may currently leave the area.

Evidence needed before approaching site-selection teams with a formal proposal:

Verified primary and secondary trade-area boundaries, household counts, income, seasonal occupancy, and growth
Traffic and visitor data that distinguish pass-through trips from realistic shopping demand
Grocery spending, competing store formats, and a standardized local price-basket comparison rather than unverified claims about statewide pricing
Buildable or leasable sites, access, parking, utilities, delivery logistics, and indicative occupancy economics
Prospective retailer feedback and a net community fiscal assessment, including possible displacement of existing sales

There is a relevant historical planning precedent: the 47 North Commercial Center concept contemplated grocery, retail, and restaurant space, including a grocery anchor. That earlier concept is not proof of current land availability, financing, approvals, or an active grocer negotiation; those details require fresh confirmation.

This complements the broader infrastructure and economic-development discussion, but does not depend on the proposed data center. Reliable roads, power, communications, and developable sites can make a community more viable for employers and retailers. The public benefit still has to be demonstrated in actual household choices, commercial activity, jobs, costs, and tax receipts.

Status: Independent outreach and preliminary research; no confirmed retailer site review, Chamber endorsement, store commitment, or quantified municipal revenue

Disclosure: The four named domains are privately owned initiative assets of Karl Ohlemann. Domain ownership does not confer any relationship with, endorsement by, or authority to represent Trader Joe's, Grocery Outlet, any other retailer, or the Chamber of Commerce. The reported level of local grocery demand is based on community experience, not a completed representative survey; no statewide Safeway price ranking has been substantiated.

Idea 04 · Workforce and attainable housing

Can the people who work here afford to live here?

A resilient local economy needs more than new buildings and storefronts. It also needs housing options for the people who make the community function: hospitality and service workers, tradespeople, educators, healthcare staff, first responders, small-business employees, and their families. The affordability of housing relative to local wages is a practical workforce and business-development question, not only a housing-policy debate.

In earlier City Heights-related community discussions, I raised the possibility of housing products more attainable to local employees, including those commuting from other towns. That was a question about regional need, not an endorsement of a specific development, settlement term, landowner, or party. Any future proposal should be evaluated independently of the City Heights dispute.

Potential approaches could include a range of smaller homes, rentals, employer partnerships, and appropriately located mixed-income housing, but none should be promoted as viable without evidence about actual wages, household needs, land costs, zoning, infrastructure, financing, and long-term affordability.

Status: Community development priority for study; no specific project, public subsidy, or developer agreement proposed

Evidence a responsible assessment would need:

Local employer feedback, documented hiring challenges, wages, and commuting patterns
Rental and ownership costs, household incomes, and the gap between available housing and local workforce needs
Buildable sites, zoning constraints, infrastructure capacity, construction economics, and feasible financing structures
Net public costs and benefits, including services, taxes, and any long-term affordability commitments

Common test for every idea

Gross revenue isn't public benefit.

A responsible feasibility review should start with legal authority, realistic demand, and net public value. The two direct-revenue ideas are early-stage concepts, and the business-recruitment initiative is an economic-development effort rather than a guaranteed income stream. None should be placed into a municipal budget, debt-service model, or operating forecast without validation.

Authority: Can the city or county lawfully implement or receive the proposed revenue?
Demand: Is there verifiable demand, and what would participants actually pay?
Net receipts: What remains after technology, administration, enforcement, refunds, and other costs?
Public fairness: Who bears the cost, which exemptions apply, and how are residents protected?
Use of money: Which public purposes may legally receive the receipts, and which funds are restricted?
Oversight: What reporting, independent review, agreements, and exit provisions would be required?

Where there is an actual proposal, the next step should be a documented feasibility assessment and an open discussion, not a commitment made solely on the strength of attractive revenue claims.

Add to the discussion

What else is worth examining?

This can be a living record of community funding and economic-development ideas, including perspectives from residents who disagree with proposals above. Ideas that do not work should be documented as such; promising ones should face the same feasibility and accountability standards as any public initiative.

Help build an evidence base: Useful contributions include comparable grocery prices or shopping options, available commercial sites, published traffic and visitor figures, local business and hiring needs, workforce commuting patterns, and housing affordability information. Please identify the source and date where possible, and share only information you have permission to disclose. Do not send private financial records, personal information about others, or confidential employer materials.

Submissions are suggestions for independent review, not a formal survey or a guaranteed publication, follow-up, business solicitation, or government application process. Information will be checked before being treated as evidence.

Share local data or an idea by email Review public financial documents

Disclosure: These concepts and outreach efforts were developed or presented by Karl Ohlemann, who has a direct interest in the underlying intellectual property, business concepts, and digital naming assets. VisiToll is a private feasibility concept, not a city or county program. No local government endorsement, agreement, collection authority, donation arrangement, confirmed retailer interest, or realized revenue is claimed. Any future public-purpose revenue arrangement would require lawful approval, transparent terms, and public accounting.

Prepared through WeHeartCleElumRoslyn, SPC · Nov 2026. This page records concepts for public discussion and is not legal, financial, transportation, or tax advice.