Council reviews 10‑year finance projection, discusses CFO role and work‑plan prioritization

Councilmembers at a special call meeting examined a ten-year budget projection and related work-plan priorities, discussed assumptions about grant revenue and maintenance-and-operation savings, and debated whether to immediately hire a chief financial officer or rely on interim arrangements and a council subcommittee.

Councilmember Paul Prince said he adjusted a spreadsheet originally prepared by staff to move some water and wastewater project payments later in the 10‑year horizon and to increase certain projected payments to better align with the city’s water master plan. In his model he used conservative grant assumptions and included a recurring inflow from development-related fees and operational surplus. Staff and council discussed a new entry labeled “M&O savings” tied to ongoing efforts to reduce maintenance and operations spending; one councilmember referenced prior estimates that ranged from roughly $3 million on the general-fund side to $1.5 million on the utility side and recommended a more conservative $1.5 million assumption for the model.

Using those adjustments, Prince said the projection did not show an immediate fiscal cliff through 2032; some debt service drops off in the mid-2030s, which could free capacity for new borrowing at that time. Councilmembers emphasized the need to maintain a contingency fund: they discussed a 90‑day reserve target for funds and noted that a suggested reserve would likely equate to several million dollars (a councilmember estimated about $7 million, but no exact figure was adopted). Councilmembers agreed the spreadsheet should be updated with actuals each budget cycle and presented routinely so the council can monitor whether the city is trending toward or away from structural shortfalls.

The council also discussed finance staffing. Councilmembers said the finance director/CFO position is not being actively filled immediately; options under consideration included relying on the incoming finance director and council volunteers, or creating a small council subcommittee to work with finance staff until a CFO is needed. One councilmember said the kind of forecasting presented by Prince, staff and another councilmember is the work a CFO would perform and suggested a subcommittee be formed as an interim step.

On the city work plan, councilmembers proposed a prioritization approach rather than a long “laundry list” of tasks. Members suggested using a prioritization framework such as the Eisenhower matrix (urgent/important quadrants) or a split into core objectives and “stretch” goals. Council direction included asking staff to collect top objectives from department heads (a suggested “top 3–5” items per department) and to post those inputs to the council discussion board so councilmembers can submit priorities electronically. The council set an anticipated follow‑up timeline to return the consolidated prioritization for finalization at a future meeting (targets discussed included a second meeting in March or the first meeting in April).

No ordinances or formal motions were adopted during the session. Councilmembers asked staff to post the updated spreadsheet and org‑chart materials to the shared drive, to update projections with actuals as part of the annual budget cycle, and to present routine briefings so the council can assess progress against the work plan and the financial forecast.

Clarifying details noted during the discussion included that Prince used a conservative grant assumption rather than an optimistic large grant, that some water and wastewater project payments were moved later in the projection, and that debt service reductions in the mid-2030s may create borrowing capacity. Councilmembers did not adopt a definitive reserve-dollar target during the meeting and left the CFO hiring question open for further consideration.