Fernley council narrowly votes to strip city manager funding; mayor vetoes move amid public outcry

Fernley — In a contentious session that ran late into the evening on May 21, the Fernley City Council voted 3-2 to approve the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget while removing funding for the city manager position, prompting Mayor Neil E. McIntyre to exercise his veto and the council to fail in an attempt to override it.

Councilmembers Albert Torres, Joe Mendoza and Councilwoman Zerski voted to adopt the budget without the city manager line item; Councilmen Ryan Hannon and Laauo voted no. After the mayor vetoed the action, council members attempted to overturn the veto but did not secure the votes needed to prevail. The council scheduled additional budget hearings May 28–29 to try to resolve the impasse before the state deadline.

The vote followed hours of public comment, staff reports and an extended council debate. City Manager Ben Marshant, who would be affected if the position were defunded, told the meeting he had not been given written goals or formal notice of performance failures; he urged deliberation and warned the council that eliminating the position at this point would reduce administrative capacity as the city grows. Mayor McIntyre said he would veto the motion, calling the defunding “a big letdown to the citizens” who rely on consistent executive leadership.

Supporters of the defunding argued they had concerns about the city manager’s performance and asked that the council act to remove the office’s funding. Those councilmembers declined to discuss specifics on the record during the budget hearing, citing a legal briefing that limited what could be said in public about personnel issues. Opponents, including business and development leaders who spoke during the public hearing, said removing funding for the manager would send a damaging signal to prospective businesses and imperil planned infrastructure projects.

The proposed FY2025-26 budget includes allocations for water and wastewater enterprise funds, capital improvement projects, updated master planning, and additional staffing in utilities and permitting. Staff and many business leaders at the meeting urged council to approve the budget to maintain project timelines, allow planned hires and avoid adverse financial consequences. City Treasurer Robert Carson and City Manager Marshant warned that failing to adopt a budget by the June 1 statutory deadline would roll the city into the prior year’s budget, constrain midyear adjustments, and likely forfeit opportunities and revenues tied to the new budget.

After the failed veto override, councilmembers agreed to reconvene May 28–29 for further budget deliberations. Until the issue is resolved, some planned hires and capital projects face delay or change, and residents may see an impact on planned reductions to ancillary fees tied to the adopted budget.