Powell Finance Committee Meeting: CIP, Fee Schedule, and Financial Policy Review – September 8, 2026

The Powell Finance Committee met on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 47 Hall Street, Powell, Ohio. The committee reviewed the August 2026 monthly financial report, the draft 2027–2031 Capital Improvement Plan, the proposed 2027 fee schedule, and three financial policies (CIP funding, fund balance, and purchasing). The committee voted to recommend the revised CIP to City Council and discussed, without final action, potential changes to purchasing thresholds and fund balance targets.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the August 11, 2026 Finance Committee minutes was on the agenda; the available transcript does not record action on this item.

Discussion Items

• August Financial Report: Staff presented the August monthly report. A member observed the report appears "a little further behind than it actually is reflecting," which matters for next year's budget. The 2027 budget was built essentially flat, about one to two percent above the current year. A revenue and trending analysis is scheduled for the November meeting.
• 2027–2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Staff summarized a memo incorporating prior committee comments into the second draft. The finalized CIP book will go to Council the following week, will be posted on the city website, and will be promoted through a story linking to the booklet. A member reiterated the need for a specific item on road improvements and accomplishments over recent years. The committee voted to recommend the CIP to Council.
• 2027 Proposed Fee Schedule: Staff reviewed the 2026 schedule and proposed a few 2027 changes, highlighted in yellow on pages 11–12 of the packet, effective January 1, 2027. Council review may be delayed by a separate planning and zoning petition whose validity and statutory deadlines remain in flux; approval is required by the final Council meeting of the year. Members noted the nomenclature changes reflect software rather than services, and that the committee's action is only a recommendation. One member said they did not see Council pushing back on a schedule that has barely changed.
• Annual Review of Financial Policies: Staff framed the review as a chance to understand the policies rather than decide immediately. The CIP funding, fund balance, and purchasing policies were considered; investment and debt policies are scheduled for November.
  • CIP Funding Policy: Directs 25% of prior-year income taxes to the capital projects fund and up to 5% to the PDC/CIC, with figures red-lined directly from the ballot measure. In a first-time state auditor review, the auditor found the PDC's economic development role did not tie to capital projects and requested a direct general fund transfer instead; project funding sources will now show the general fund. Council retains discretion over the CIC percentage, and any amount not transferred to the CIC must go to the capital improvement fund.
  • Fund Balance Policy: Sets ranges from 0–25% of the five-year average of general fund revenues (solvency) up to 76–100% (long-term planning). The city is "way above" the fiscally prudent range of 75–100%, with orange-highlighted columns showing excess based on the current general fund. Members debated whether percentages should change as the city grows, noted the policy says "should" rather than "must," and questioned whether the roughly $2.3 million reserve is adequate; one member said the city should not spend $8.4 million just because it has excess. A member cited 2011 or 2012 as an example of how quickly conditions changed, and the county auditor has said they analyze fund balances and could question the city's tax rate or demand more transparency. Comparing the policy with other entities was suggested, and it was observed that general fund revenues jumped in 2022 after many flat years.
  • Purchasing Policy: Discussion focused on raising the council approval threshold from $50,000 to $75,000, which would set the city manager's signing authority at $25,000–$75,000 and change the finance director's threshold accordingly. One member emphasized that purchasing policies exist for internal controls and risk, not efficiency. The municipality comparison was of limited value without budget context, and all compared communities have larger budgets largely due to fire departments. A new Section E paragraph clarifies that professional services are not subject to competitive bidding or council authorization when the current operating budget provides, while quotations or proposal fee confirmations are still required. Members discussed safeguards, the need for council appropriations on some items, and vendor frustration, which one participant described as "not a great look for the city."

Key Outcomes

• The committee voted to recommend the revised 2027–2031 Capital Improvement Plan to City Council for the following week's meeting.
• The 2027 fee schedule was discussed as a committee recommendation to Council, with possible delay to November or December depending on the planning and zoning petition; the record does not show a formal vote.
• No final action was recorded on the fund balance or purchasing policies. The next meeting is the budget review session; the November meeting will include the investment and debt policy review and the revenue trending analysis.