Fernley treasurer presents tentative FY2026–27 budget and proposal to eliminate city manager, add two chief officers

Robert Carson, the city treasurer and finance director, presented a tentative FY2026–27 budget to the Fernley City Council and proposed an organization overhaul that would eliminate the city manager and deputy city manager positions and create two new senior executive roles.

Carson told the council the tentative budget ‘‘was created by the mayor and me in collaboration with the department heads’’ and is intended as a starting point for council review and public input, not a final vote. He said the filing is required by state law and that the final budget will return to the council for approval in May.

The presentation outlined revenue and expenditure trends. Carson said total revenues are estimated to be lower than FY25 while property taxes are up; he flagged reductions in license and permit receipts and a substantial decline in projected investment earnings. He told the council the current-year budget had included a $4.6 million planned deficit driven by one‑time master plans and capital purchases, but he now expects the actual deficit to be closer to $1 million to $1.5 million because many projects will carry over into the next fiscal year.

On the expenditure side, Carson said the tentative FY2026–27 operating budget shows higher spending mainly from planned one‑time capital outlays and master-plan carryovers. ‘‘We budgeted a $4.6 million deficit for this year . . . almost all in one-time expenses,’’ he said, adding that much of the gap reflects projects approved previously and not completed.

The reorganization would remove the city manager and deputy positions and create a chief operations officer and a chief development officer. Carson said the change would also split the mayor and council into separate budget departments, establish utility administration and utility billing as distinct budget units, and create dedicated parks staff. He estimated the reorganization could produce annual savings in a range of $50,000 to $150,000 depending on final salary and benefit choices.

City Attorney Anne Mortensen provided statutory context, explaining that under Nevada law for NRS 266 (the statute governing many Nevada cities), executive powers rest with the mayor. ‘‘In NRS 266 cities like the city of Fernley, the mayor is not part of the legislative branch at all . . . he’s the chief executive and controls everything in the executive side,’’ Mortensen said, arguing the change would clarify the division between legislative and executive functions.

Council members asked for more detailed policies around hiring, appointment and evaluation of the two new chief positions. Councilwoman Zaberski, Councilman Mendoza and Councilman Torres pressed on whether council would interview or confirm candidates and how performance reviews and reporting would work. Carson said that, if the council supports the reorganization in principle, staff would return with job descriptions and proposed policies; the mayor would retain hiring authority but council evaluations and regular reporting by the chiefs were discussed as accountability measures.

Carson also proposed several new operational positions — an animal control officer, a public information officer (PIO), an HR technician and an on-call municipal court clerk — and said the grants administrator would move under the city treasurer. Council debate focused on whether the grants administrator could also perform PIO duties; some council members asked for an efficiency study before authorizing a new full-time PIO.

Carson stressed conservative budgeting assumptions: a 2% cost-of-living adjustment for salaries, a 15% health-insurance estimate and elevated capital contingencies. He told the council the city still carries significant pooled cash and investments across funds and that most of the FY26 deficit was planned carryover rather than recurring operating shortfall.

The council and staff agreed to carry the conversation forward. Carson said details would be finalized as part of the May budget process and that any approved reorganization would take effect on July 1, contingent on the final budget vote.

The council did not take a final vote on the budget or the reorganization at the meeting; the presentation and discussion were informational with public comment taken before the meeting recessed for further slides and review.