Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Wellington advisory board reviews draft financial management policies, debates signing thresholds

August 11, 2025 | Wellington Town, Larimer County, Colorado


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Wellington advisory board reviews draft financial management policies, debates signing thresholds
WELLINGTON, Colo. — The Town of Wellington Finance Advisory Board on July 28 reviewed a comprehensive first draft of consolidated financial management policies and asked staff to collect further feedback and return the package to the Board of Trustees for adoption.

Nick Redavid, finance director and treasurer for the Town of Wellington, presented “draft number 1” and said the document gathers existing fund, budget, purchasing and contract rules into a single policy intended to increase transparency and protect taxpayer funds. “What you see in front of you is draft number 1,” Redavid said.

The draft pulls guidance from the Government Finance Officers Association and addresses auditing, fund balance targets, investments, budgeting, debt and capital project accounting, grants and purchasing. It sets reserve guidelines the board discussed during the meeting: an unassigned-reserve target of 33% of regular operating expenditures or 110% of debt service (whichever is greater), enterprise-fund reserves equal to 90 days of operating expenditures and a capital reserve equal to one year’s depreciation. The board heard that the town’s 2023 audit has been completed and submitted to the state and that the 2024 audit is under engagement with the current auditor.

Members spent substantial time on debt and purchasing rules. The draft limits debt maturities to 30 years and recommends a “low to moderate” general-debt guideline; Redavid illustrated the effect using the town’s most recent general-fund expenditures (roughly $9.8 million) and said an 8% ceiling on general-fund debt would equal about $784,000. The board did not adopt a final ceiling but discussed keeping guardrails that allow flexibility for necessary projects while preventing over-leveraging.

A recurring point of contention was the proposed purchasing/signing thresholds. The draft moves routine delegation of authority downward to department heads and deputies to increase operational efficiency, but retains board review for larger or non‑budgeted purchases. Several members questioned a proposal that non‑budgeted purchases over $25,000 return to the Board of Trustees for approval; one member asked whether budgeted line‑item purchases should require additional trustee approval at all. Another board member said raising the non‑budgeted threshold would reduce delays on routine projects; Redavid said staff will seek comparative thresholds from other municipalities and return with recommendations.

The draft also formalizes emergency procurement authority: in declared emergencies affecting public health, welfare or safety staff could obligate funds up to $500,000 with two-authority approval (the town administrator or successor together with consultation with the mayor or successor). Redavid said that Larimer County Office of Emergency Management would handle much of disaster response, but the clause is a “worst-case” local authority.

Board members flagged additional items for clarification or future language edits: how and when the town encumbers multi‑year capital project funds (the draft proposes carrying appropriations for up to three years), whether the current $10,000 definition of a capital improvement project remains appropriate given higher costs, and establishing a trigger for considering longer-term investment of reserves once they reach a specified size.

The draft clarifies purchasing practice including competitive-bid thresholds (quotes required above $25,000; three written quotes above $100,000 and sealed competitive bidding for larger contracts), cooperative purchasing options, sole‑source justification procedures, and rules for the town purchasing card program and travel reimbursements (travel per diem to follow U.S. General Services Administration rates; mileage reimbursed at the IRS rate). Redavid noted the town is tax‑exempt in Colorado and that p‑cardholders must secure refunds if sales tax is charged out of state.

The advisory board did not adopt the policy at the meeting; members asked staff to incorporate today’s feedback, consult the town attorney and return the revised policy for a Board of Trustees work session. Redavid said staff and the deputy town administrator will compile edits and circulate revisions to the advisory board ahead of trustee review.

The discussion came as the town moves into budget season; staff said budget workshops are anticipated in the fourth quarter, with advisory board input to be solicited by email and at future meetings. “We finally have the right person in place to help get us there,” said Patty (town administrator), praising staff work on the draft.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Colorado articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI