[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6080819,"mediaKeyId","2945522-db011d64e6bef53da099cb806e956195","parentId",2945522,"title","Lawrence staff outline $6.6M preliminary 2026 shortfall; commission urges fund‑balance restoration and wage maintenance","audioSeconds",3836,"startMs",4691000,"endMs",8527000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2945522-db011d64e6bef53da099cb806e956195&start=4691&end=8527","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2945522-db011d64e6bef53da099cb806e956195/thumbnail_4691000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6080819/Lawrence/Douglas-County/Kansas/Lawrence-staff-outline-66M-preliminary-2026-shortfall-commission-urges-fundbalance-restoration-and-wage-maintenance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6080819-bf8c01b3b6578568ed1cb0410ccae505/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148756&Signature=FEvMJTDf1N7R0eSY5QGsSszB-8RwV2cqwouab6-EJ~juN1C3Z~eD9an2bFzUJbFLfqtdNCa3t2mA~khx4lovr3tVfZMBHEuBZaHgfEg327d46oGh3AQHdwwdLYvMSFKwXbK2loIPV4ANPfJKhhhFBEQJJNevL6lyDQ~5zxoR3jWcSqc7TDi3oT77ngegITvaQnznX2cill-jr9D2giaDO9P5hhsq4CJas5-PcZXaMHMUfBDEnzKhjZ9iaFIHLaXl0pJwx3bRmIlBDKbcSB9XCSfq~RBEGmiW1Kp1vyCSuPah7ZEp7RJg2rwpIQhUtutj9AaEKgU6wq07IoqoK02AyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Lawrence , KS","date","2025-04-01T00:00:00Z","article","Lawrence — City staff told the Commission April 1 that preliminary figures for the 2026 budget show a $6.6 million deficit and recommended a combination of spending reductions, fee increases and one‑time measures to close the gap.

Budget staff and department directors presented background and suggested targets. City Manager Craig said the city faces four principal structural pressures: a growing residential share of property valuation relative to commercial property; an $11 million permanent increase in payroll costs created by a prior market pay plan; increased infrastructure and regulatory costs for utilities and stormwater systems; and ongoing investments to address homelessness that were initially funded with one‑time ARPA dollars.

Budget Manager Ally told commissioners the city’s preliminary 2026 revenue projection is about $116.47 million with updated assessed‑valuation growth at 5 percent (the staff projection had been 6.25 percent earlier). With updated expenditure assumptions the preliminary shortfall stood at approximately $6.6 million. Ally said the city used a public engagement tool called Balancing Act to collect 637 public submissions and developed four priority tiers to translate qualitative community priorities into target reduction percentages (tier 2 ~6 percent, tier 3 ~13 percent, tier 4 ~20 percent) to inform department proposals.

Staff presented department‑level target ranges rather than final plans. Highlights included: MSO (Municipal Services & Operations) potential reductions and revenue moves targeting roughly $730,000–$1.1 million; Fire/EMS preferred option with additional EMS capacity and an estimated $1.5–$1.9 million net cost shift that would require increased county revenue participation; an alternative for Fire that would eliminate an engine and remove up to nine sworn FTEs if county revenue were not forthcoming; Police targets around $1.2–$1.3 million achieved largely by eliminating six sworn positions and two civilian support positions (staff noted many of the positions listed are currently vacant); Parks, Recreation & Culture net target about $1.7 million including access fees projected at $500,000–$700,000 and elimination or reduction of seasonal positions equivalent to roughly 4 FTEs; and Homeless Solutions general‑fund exposure around $2.7 million with a proposed 10 percent contract reduction for a partner (about $350,000) and a possible reduction of one contracted FTE.

Ally and department directors emphasized these are preliminary proposals and that staff intends to pursue revenue enhancements where feasible (charging staff time to bond projects, shifting transfers between funds, user‑fee adjustments) and to return with refined numbers. She also described early retirement incentives and vacancy‑management strategies intended to create vacancies in targeted areas rather than conducting across‑the‑board layoffs.

Multiple public speakers urged the commission to protect public safety and homeless services. Seamus Alberton, president of the Lawrence Professional Firefighters, said the fire department had already cut nearly $2 million from its operating budget in prior cycles and asked the commission to “fund our core services,” adding, “You can change hours to facilities, fees like that. But what you can't change ... is the number of heart attacks that are going to happen in the city of Lawrence.” John Inman, vice chair of the Lawrence Police Officers Association, urged caution about cutting sworn positions and noted the department regularly operates below full authorized staffing. Howard Callahan, an outreach case manager with Bert Nash, warned that cutting homeless‑services staff would have “a downstream effect” and urged retention of the city’s case management capacity.

Commissioner feedback at the meeting showed a mix of priorities but a general desire to protect market compensation for employees and to rebuild the general fund. Several commissioners said they supported a $2 million target to restore fund balance as a step toward stabilizing reserves; others asked staff to return with more definitive year‑end 2024 actuals, updated sales‑tax receipts (new sales tax revenues are expected to begin arriving), and refined estimates on fee revenue potential for parks and rec. Commissioners asked for clearer metrics for code‑compliance and rental‑inspection workloads before cutting code‑compliance staff, and asked staff to continue talks with Douglas County about EMS funding and the county’s share of costs if the preferred Fire/EMS option is adopted.

Staff listed next steps: continue community and employee engagement, refine departmental proposals and fee estimates, return in June with a proposed CIP, and present the city manager’s recommended budget July 8.

No final budget votes occurred at the April 1 meeting; commissioners provided policy direction and asked staff to return with more detailed, quantified proposals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lawrence City Commission Meeting 04/01/2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","City staff presented a preliminary 2026 budget showing a roughly $6.6 million deficit and a list of department reduction targets. Commissioners signaled support for restoring fund balance and keeping market compensation; staff will return with refined revenue and program proposals ahead of the July budget.","taxTitle","Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas","taxId",3971,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6080823,"Commission adopts new development code; keeps occupancy cap in 4–1 vote",734,3966000,4700000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2945522-db011d64e6bef53da099cb806e956195&start=3966&end=4700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2945522-db011d64e6bef53da099cb806e956195/thumbnail_3966000.jpg","/articles/6080823/Lawrence/Douglas-County/Kansas/Commission-adopts-new-development-code-keeps-occupancy-cap-in-41-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6080823-911af5fbceff6961f6f41a2fa64a8606/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148756&Signature=l0MkZUCoclSLpVm~-7yrqEgeUKFUk4sCjK28USzBLpoHFwFevhKQ-l-D~v6918p7a5SoPPwYnmwf1V2ke5V3r7KayHQ3gW2UTuYSfTMsJR1OabHO0h7hAFLNP2~DxjODIzHfkx404IX0tgTIdsowGpoNp-CMXqXd4HxvB5Zwf5ZgUcx~70NUKHAxgntKyBN-EvU~8PgQ1cWZMPrFbHGLXrvVtJrZLzl9lb5VMTL8sDb8e-Y9EA28SADJ~D-uuKDDbASk45lCdkzSy7ak-Bm3Hl2uL4hAlGsAWlLB5vGr18ivc7oeyKyFh-w87cG~0v~QifbHtjpFlDFYg0OLPGWj4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawrence — The City Commission adopted a consolidated development code, Ordinance No. 10120, on second and final reading and separately approved Ordinance No. 10121 addressing residential occupancy limits after public comment and a brief commission discussion at the April 1, 2025 meeting.

The development code ordinance passed 5–0. A later vote on the occupancy‑limits ordinance passed with four votes in favor and one opposing vote; Commissioner Sellers registered the lone dissent.

City staff and public speakers framed the occupancy question as a housing‑supply and civil‑rights issue. David Baston, a member of the public, told the commission, “This ordinance hits everybody. Students, workers, roommates,” and argued that the cap is “arbitrary” and could be “unconstitutional,” citing Moore v. East Cleveland in describing legal risk. Baston said permits dropped in 2024 to 57 and warned the rule could shrink housing supply.

Ellen Johnson, who identified herself at the podium as a community member, urged the commission to modify the code to allow more sober‑living and supportive housing, saying existing occupancy caps “are preventing the establishment of necessary sober living environments and supported housing for mentally ill and drug addicted community members.” She cited Oxford House models and submitted research to commissioners in support.

An online commenter, Chris Flowers, suggested occupancy limits that scale by bedroom (for example, two occupants per bedroom plus one) and proposed addressing vehicle parking directly rather than using occupancy as a proxy for parking demand.

Commission discussion focused on legal exposure, community impacts and enforcement. One commissioner asked whether prior occupancy limits had been litigated; a staff member responded that the earlier 3‑and‑4 person limit had been challenged and “it was upheld by the federal court.” Commissioners expressed differing views during debate: several said they preferred fewer or no caps in principle but voted to adopt the blanket occupancy ordinance as presented. The mayor and members of the commission emphasized the ordinance is a second‑reading adoption and therefore a final legislative act for this process.

Actions recorded on the record included two motions related to D8A: (1) adoption of Ordinance No. 10120 (consolidated development code) and (2) adoption of Ordinance No. 10121 (occupancy limits). Both motions were moved and seconded by council members and carried (development code 5–0; occupancy ordinance 4–1).

Commissioners and residents repeatedly asked staff to provide data and enforcement metrics going forward. Several speakers said the planning commission had not presented studies to justify the numerical cap. City staff did not present new studies at the meeting and said implementation and enforcement detail will follow through the city’s normal administrative process.

The commission did not announce an effective date or additional implementation details for the ordinances at the meeting; those administrative steps were not specified in the record.

Votes at a glance: Ordinance No. 10120 (Development Code) — Mover: Finkle Dice; Second: Sellers; Outcome: approved 5–0. Ordinance No. 10121 (Occupancy limits) — Mover: Finkle Dice; Second: Sellers; Outcome: approved 4–1 (Commissioner Sellers opposed).

The adoption closes the legislative step on the development code and the occupancy provision; commissioners asked staff for follow‑up information on enforcement, any exceptions for licensed supportive housing, and data that could inform future amendments.","The Lawrence City Commission adopted a consolidated development code on second and final reading and approved a separate ordinance limiting residential occupancy after public comment raised concerns about impacts on sober‑living homes, students and low‑income residents. The development code passed unanimously; the occupancy limit passed 4–1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawrence staff outline $6.6M preliminary 2026 shortfall; commission urges fund‑balance restoration and wage maintenance

Commission adopts new development code; keeps occupancy cap in 4–1 vote