[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6143471,"mediaKeyId","5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835","parentId",5535657,"title","Commission sets maximum 2026 mill rate above Kansas revenue-neutral level; schedules public hearings","audioSeconds",2762,"startMs",7983000,"endMs",10745000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835&start=7983&end=10745","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835/thumbnail_7983000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6143471/Lawrence/Douglas-County/Kansas/Commission-sets-maximum-2026-mill-rate-above-Kansas-revenue-neutral-level-schedules-public-hearings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6143471-d95d399e27ce8f293e79dddbb41e4de4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775222177&Signature=BtyB55Fo3YuyNCyX~cg-JFUvEP8nWm29UCg9M2hDyq0WH90ulZQgk7xgMb8lU5Ke3iW2qRU-IQw-7cREr16I9tFTFDFF5sUm7LmsdhpCtoXGRH4G9Hhtrwa~I3gD5Rewqrl0pw4lEcieHtlPUwzE341wr2JzB5mxJiHO7ReRg-NjE3fz5h2WM2p2p9DLxu77YRqUMUy2fPtkN-Okr-Tw97NLFofYLzbyGreC~KcvcglIgs6fdI0JCsxy7WQSODYCmaYpktSnytaFqhzuXua3MloTeARr1vUZZZBnSOwhMH1~Ube~TmzyuwbNVc76eFHObgKU5t86rtZrr7VWRe24lA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Lawrence, KS","date","2025-07-16T07:30:15Z","article","The Lawrence City Commission voted 3–2 on July 15 to notify Douglas County that it intends to propose a 2026 property tax rate of 33.986 mills — a rate that exceeds the county-calculated revenue-neutral rate required by Kansas law — and scheduled the required public hearings for Sept. 2 (revenue neutral and budget hearings) and Sept. 16 (anticipated adoption).

Mary Bisbee, the city’s budget analyst, briefed the commission on the state-mandated revenue-neutral process. The county-calculated revenue-neutral rate for 2026 is 31.379 mills; the budget presented by staff retains a flat mill levy at 33.186 but staff noted a small adjustment to projected property-tax revenue required updated figures. Under Kansas law, cities that propose to collect more property-tax revenue than the prior year must notify the county and hold an additional public hearing on the revenue-neutral rate before adopting a final budget.

Commissioners debated whether to set the maximum now and how much “wiggle room” to leave before affirming the final adopted rate in September. Several commissioners argued for a modest increase in the maximum to preserve flexibility to respond to late budget developments — public-safety staffing, potential county coordination on emergency medical services and other temporary costs — while others urged keeping the maximum as low as possible to avoid the appearance of pre-committing to higher taxes.

Vice Mayor Finkelstein moved the motion to notify Douglas County of intent to propose a 33.986 mill rate; Commissioner Sellers seconded. During a roll-call-style count recorded at the meeting, Commissioners Sellers and Finkelstein voted aye and Commissioner Larson voted nay; Commissioner Littlejohn recorded a nay; the remaining aye vote was recorded by the mayor during the voice vote sequence that preceded the roll call. The motion passed 3–2. Bisbee noted the county must be notified by July 20; the notification triggers county mailings to taxpayers and scheduling of the revenue-neutral hearing required by state law. Staff also reminded the commission that the maximum mill established tonight can be reduced before final adoption but cannot be increased after the county is notified.

Ending: The commission’s action sets the administrative schedule for the revenue-neutral hearing and gives staff direction to proceed with public notices; the final 2026 levy and budget remain subject to public hearings and a final vote in September.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle"," Lawrence City Commission Meeting 07/15/2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","By a 3–2 vote the commission authorized notifying Douglas County of intent to propose a 33.986 mill rate (above the county-calculated revenue-neutral rate) and scheduled hearings on Sept. 2 and Sept. 16, 2025.","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},6143476,"Commission authorizes city manager to sign agreement not to protest benefit district for West 30th and Michigan signal",330,482000,812000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835&start=482&end=812","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835/thumbnail_482000.jpg","/articles/6143476/Lawrence/Douglas-County/Kansas/Commission-authorizes-city-manager-to-sign-agreement-not-to-protest-benefit-district-for-West-30th-and-Michigan-signal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6143476-fc94d4e6731a5f0b66073d344fd5bca9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775222177&Signature=YlmRkSuseBCuA-aYS-wtz3ypY4uc0lKgKAlfUBAGnBiABj-AyAlO3gvvnM0GTm47OIZhasnJaqyvk0-5QUVhA2MYnOI8BNCqavLDi4qRzILRI0CDCWYoa3zj1VYoPG-R6woSJ~OLeWbPrPjTysIh2Ekh6q7So3pgzrS8jAiNk07siijRp1mAKa0P~c9Qan8DIzNhEZYl7W84CwTcYX7JKhGOAYP5FlgbKZoHzJ-oVi0z5xw1SSlSAQSY1Ib4-avhvYToBZGy6rZtHRVP6cZkfMmHe2qreDPm3t2ZpEVb~2KePQC04UNBLN9eM360JWKAhBaV5gw5C5wGOJKTKsg7zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lawrence City Commission voted unanimously July 15 to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district and an escrow deposit with Castle Lock LC (or any successor) for traffic-signal improvements at West 30th Street and Michigan Street.

Vice Mayor Finkelstein offered the motion and Commissioner Littlejohn seconded it. The commission approved the motion 5–0.

Developer representatives had requested the city’s agreement not to protest formation of a benefit district as part of the financing steps that would allow the developer to construct a traffic signal at the intersection to serve new development. Resident commenter Chris Flowers urged more study of alternatives and suggested turn restrictions or reworking signal timing rather than adding a new signal; he said he believed the intersection was one of several closely spaced signals in the corridor and urged caution on redundancy.

Commissioners said the vote at this stage did not itself authorize construction. As Finkelstein explained during discussion, the agreement not to protest helps move a project forward but formation of the benefit district and a later vote would be the time for final decisions on building the traffic signal and related costs.

Ending: The motion directs the city manager to complete the non-protest agreement and escrow terms; the actual formation of the benefit district and funding or construction decisions will be subject to later action and public review.","The commission unanimously authorized the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement not to protest formation of a benefit district and related escrow with the developer for traffic-signal improvements at West 30th Street and Michigan Street.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6143480,"Lawrence staff weighs membership fees to avoid deeper parks and recreation cuts",1896,827000,2723000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835&start=827&end=2723","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5535657-db3101d9729098127bf3b51d29e00835/thumbnail_827000.jpg","/articles/6143480/Lawrence/Douglas-County/Kansas/Lawrence-staff-weighs-membership-fees-to-avoid-deeper-parks-and-recreation-cuts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6143480-29df4b8a2f05e53e09d58b36c3a7e828/orig.mp4?Expires=1775222177&Signature=DbkSgNblMvya~RkvZO3L6eNRqNB5yds4QOUk~Qw4Nj2ffb6~DqqNGJg7ftwW1B-a389iJq1nXo96ruUJYkj3mTp3zhU9RaeO5paLBEDi3O72Ctpn7IaRC3~Fts17kOj0~G22~IbLQ4aAqFiwLKq89V-KyQMm7DhKESys02mwizlIJwtE4hh4W4me7oNbZ6U1vStRJZyG99CdfPDJXofd2sXJenb3jxZwtO9dPgDO-8D3tR5visjsDOBGquv1IpEFZqLzKENwiUG0~9bUmf6X50IcXm0oEZG0RhO3aCVM5R9omg01uqzdebMusrunR69pAEk9l-SdcJe~oxhplj-Wag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Lawrence Parks, Recreation and Culture leaders told the City Commission on July 15 that membership and spectator fees could reduce planned cuts to services if the commission directs staff to proceed, but they would not fully eliminate the department’s $1.8 million reduction target.

The report, delivered by Luis Ruiz, director of Parks, Recreation and Culture, said the department’s general-fund budget is “approximately $18,000,000” and that the city charged the department with finding a 10% reduction — about $1,800,000 — during this budget cycle. Ruiz presented two scenarios: one that relies largely on reductions and modest program fee increases and a second that pairs reductions with new membership and spectator fees.

The two scenarios differ in scale of service impacts and revenue estimates. Without new membership fees, staff projects roughly $1.4 million in departmental expenditure reductions and about $370,000 in additional revenue from modest program fee increases such as a $1 increase to aquatic admissions. With membership and spectator fees, staff estimated the additional revenues could be in the range of $500,000 to $750,000, which would reduce but not eliminate cuts and would leave fewer positions eliminated and smaller reductions in parks maintenance and recreation center hours.

Ruiz emphasized the purpose of the proposal in plain terms: “The purpose of initiating, or even presenting these, these fees is not for profit for the department — it's to try to maintain as many services as we can.” Assistant Director Lindsay Harder described the proposed fee structure and household options and said staff hopes to offer flexible access including day passes, punch cards and monthly or annual memberships: “we will be offering day passes and punch cards.” Harder outlined access guarantees included in the proposal: program participants who have already paid for a fitness class or league would not be charged again to enter, and parents attending practices would not be charged; tournament spectator fees at Sports Pavilion Lawrence (SPL) were proposed at $5 per person.

Staff described affordability measures in the proposal: a “qualified resident” or scholarship rate about 60% below the standard resident rate using low-barrier verification tied to existing programs (free/reduced school lunch, SNAP, housing assistance), a household membership covering up to five people, and free youth access windows (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 3–5 p.m., and Wednesday 1–5 p.m., proposed year round). Staff also reported the community engagement effort: a three-week online survey that received about 2,600 responses (roughly 1,300 included written comments), four pop-up events attended by about 52 people, and three focus groups. Staff’s conservative first-year membership target was 2,000 members and 500 punch-card day-pass sales.

Public commenters at the work session were divided. Several residents urged against fees, saying they would reduce access for children, seniors and low-income residents and questioned the facts in staff’s market comparison. Emma Dorst said, “I can say with total confidence that none of us are gonna be able to use the facilities anymore,” if fees are imposed at the proposed level. Other speakers, including former Parks staff and local users, urged the commission to accept some fees to avoid deeper service cuts and to preserve facility quality. Fred de Victor, a former parks and recreation director, praised staff work and said scholarships and fee waivers were an established mitigation.

Commission discussion focused on three core questions staff had asked the commission to answer: whether to continue pursuing membership and spectator fees; whether the proposed prices felt fair and transparent; and whether resident eligibility should be limited to city residents or include Douglas County. Commissioners expressed a range of views. Several commissioners signaled support for pursuing spectator fees and for exploring membership at a lower rate (an option staff noted would produce less revenue — staff ran an analysis showing an Option 2 that excluded SPL from the higher tier would reduce projected membership revenue by about $150,000). Some commissioners also urged that any fee policy include a robust, low-barrier qualification path for youth and low-income residents and asked staff to return with refined options.

No final action was taken; the item was presented as a work session and staff said they would return with revised proposals and implementation details. Ruiz and Harder said a membership launch would require internal systems work, staff training and an outreach campaign; they proposed a January 2 launch if the commission approved the structure this fall.

For now, staff and commissioners left the main outcomes as direction: continue developing membership and spectator-fee models, refine affordability and residency definitions (staff noted they have not been using address-based residency checks and would implement address/GIS checks if residency-based pricing is adopted), and return with more detailed implementation logistics and revenue projections before the final budget decision.

Ending: Ruiz asked for commission guidance over the coming weeks so staff could model 2026 budget numbers with either path; commissioners asked staff to bring back refined options and clarified they wanted continued community outreach and further analysis of possible alternative revenue (naming rights, sponsorships, parking permits, and other commercial opportunities) to reduce ongoing reliance on fees.

","Parks, Recreation and Culture staff outlined proposed membership and spectator fees and two budget scenarios to meet a $1.8 million reduction target. Commissioners gave mixed direction; the commission did not take binding action during the work session.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission sets maximum 2026 mill rate above Kansas revenue-neutral level; schedules public hearings

Commission authorizes city manager to sign agreement not to protest benefit district for West 30th and Michigan signal

Lawrence staff weighs membership fees to avoid deeper parks and recreation cuts