By Robert Perea
Discussions on the City of Fernley’s budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year remained at an impasse after Mayor Neal McIntyre vetoed a proposed budget that would have defunded the city manager’s position at the May 21 City Council meeting.
A motion to override the veto failed because of not enough votes, meaning the City of Fernley remains without a final budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year as the deadline looms to submit its final budget to the State Department of Taxation.
A special meeting has been scheduled for 5 p.m. Wednesday for the council to continue discussions and try to hammer out an agreement. The city must submit its final budget to the state by June 1. City Treasurer Robert Carson told the council if they don’t submit an approved budget by June 1, the fiscal year 2024-25 budget would be adopted by default.
Carson said in that case, the council would not be able to revise the budget without the express approval of the Department of Taxation, so any staff raises or purchases or planning projects would not go forward, and the city would lose out on revenue because property tax rates would not increase.
Also, the water ancillary fee, which was originally imposed on property owners in 2016 to help pay water bonds but was not included in the proposed 2025-26 budget, would remain in effect.
Following a lengthy discussion that included pleas from developers and residents to approve the proposed budget, a motion to that effect failed with two council members, Ryan Hanan and Stan Lau, in favor, and Felicity Zoberski, Albert Torres and Joe Mendoza opposed.
Torres then offered a motion to approve the proposed budget except for defunding the position of city manager. Despite impassioned speeches opposing the motion by McIntyre and pleas by Hanan that went unheeded for someone to explain the reasoning behind the motion, the council voted 3-2 with Zoberski, Torres and Mendoza in favor, and Hanan and Lau opposed. McIntyre then announced that he was vetoing the motion.
Mendoza made a motion to overturn the veto.
“And I also want you guys to realize that council that has voted and has approved this whole budget,” Mendoza added. “It’s one line item that wasn’t approved, and that is on you, Mayor.”
The vote to overturn the veto was Zoberski, Torres and Mendoza in favor and Hanan and Lau opposed, but the motion failed because a supermajority of four affirmative votes is required to overturn a veto by the mayor.
Following Torres’ motion to approve the budget and defund the position of city manager, Hanan asked Torres why he wanted to delete the city manager’s position.
“We were asked not to talk about those matters, per a legal brief, and no, I will not answer that,” Torres said.
Hanan continued to try to convince other council members to give a reason, saying not sharing that information with other council members disenfranchises the voters who elected them.
“To call a body in this capacity, and then just to ask, on a whim, take a leap of faith with no explanation to delete a position in this city government, is so absurd in my head, I can’t wrap my head around it,” Hanan said. “Why are we doing this?”
“I think it would actually turn into a public argument if we went into it up here, and I’m not willing to do that,” Torres said. “Just as you make a motion or vote in the way that you deem best, based upon what you want to see, that is what I’m doing.”
McIntyre argued that the council members who want to defund the city manager position would want to tell the public why. He said only one council member has ever given him a list of goals for the city manager, and that the city manager met all those goals. He also touted the city’s balanced budget for the past two years and said the city is moving forward under Marchant’s leadership.
“If this passes, you are going to put so much pressure on every one of these department heads,” McIntyre said. “This is going to put the city of Fernley back 15 years because it’s not the right thing to do. Who in their right mind, if this goes through, is going to want to come and be a city manager for the city of Fernley after watching this.”
Dan Ravetto, a member of the Fernley Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, called the council’s action embarrassing.
“As a Chamber of Commerce, how do we go forward and represent this city to potential businesses when our city council pulls, pardon my language, but crap like this? It’s embarrassing,” Ravetto said.
Marchant, who said he was speaking as a city resident, not as the city manager, said he has never felt so mistreated and not talked to.
“I have not been put on any notice of performance issues, I have not been told any goals that I should have met that I have not met, I have not been served with any papers, I’m not under any investigation, at least I wasn’t as of the last time I talked to the city attorney, and to suggest that this city does not need a city manager as the organization grows I think is very poor judgment and governance,” Marchant said.
Hanan asked if Marchant had been given notice that his character and competency might be discussed, and if there was any legal reason the council couldn’t tell him why his position was being eliminated.
City Attorney Aaron Mouritsen said Marchant w notified, but he preferred the council stay on the topic of the budget and of the city manager position itself and not on character.
Mendoza asked how many city employees would be laid off if the budget didn’t pass. Finance Director Robert Carson said that would have to be evaluated if it actually happened.
Marchant said if the current budget gets carried over, then his position remains, and he said he will do everything he can to prevent anyone from being laid off.
“The issue is, whether you budget for it or not, there will be cost increases, inflation, so what was adequate this year won’t be adequate next year,” Marchant said. “And if we get in a budget pinch where it’s not in the budget and the Department of Taxation does not allow the council to make revision mid-year, then the only option would be to reduce in other areas.”
As an example, Marchant said if the budget defaults back to the previous budget, the city will have more than $4 million budgeted to build a Community Response and Resource Center that will have already been built and paid for.
“And you cannot reallocate those funds to do any of the other things you want,” he said. “It really pigeonholes and limits the city’s options.”
Hanan asked if the council would be willing to fund the city manager position for six months, pending a review process in which the council could give feedback as to the performance of the city manager, then the council could defund the position at that time if its objectives weren’t met.
Mendoza said he wouldn’t be interested in that type of negotiation.
“What I want to stress is there was a majority vote on this council, by the council that’s been elected to be here,” Mendoza said. “And this veto power is the right of the mayor, and we can’t argue that, it’s pretty obvious. But if the majority is silenced, just like we literally just have been, I think it’s a shame that we keep going to the veto power instead of letting the majority speak. I consciously made my decision to vote the way I voted, and I will stand behind it 100%.”
Mendoza then made a motion to continue the budget discussion to a special meeting on May 28 at 5 p.m., which passed 4-1, with Hanan opposed. Mouritsen said because of the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, he would have to research whether that left enough time for an agenda for Wednesday to meet the proper notification period, and he requested the council vote to schedule a meeting on Thursday also, in case the notice period for a Wednesday meeting didn’t meet legal requirements. That motion also passed 4-1, with Hanan opposed.
Comment
Comments