City attorney to rule after council rejects mayor's compromise on FY2026 budget; 45-day deadline in dispute

The Lawrence City Council rejected a motion to proceed using the mayor's proposed compromise on the fiscal year 2026 budget on Monday, and City Attorney Tim Hooten said he will research whether state law means the budget was deemed adopted after the 45-day window or whether filing an amended budget resets the review clock.

Hooten, who briefed the council during the special June 23 meeting, said the council originally received the budget that was filed May 2. Under state law, he explained, the council must act within 45 days of filing; if no action is taken then the filed budget could be deemed adopted. The council continued hearings on the budget and the mayor presented an amended budget during the hearings. "The question then became ... did that change the time period?" Hooten said. "The answer to that question is unresolved."

Hooten told the council he had contacted state officials who could find no definitive case law and had advised that the city attorney ultimately must make the legal determination. "I am not a judge. I am an advocate," Hooten said. "I don't like being in a position of being a judge... I need to do research and determine what's gonna happen. In that vein ... 48 hours." He said the state indicated it would not intervene if the mayor and council reached a compromise.

Mayor Brian A. Pena had offered a compromise package the city attorney described as moving certain dollars between line items — including transfers to training and emergency management lines — and accepting some cuts (Hooten referred to agreed $30,000 reductions for advertising and a $30,000 reduction tied to emergency management consulting). Hooten said the mayor declined to accept a proposed $99,000 reduction in the mayor's office line but had agreed to most other changes.

Councilor LaPlante moved to "use the mayor's compromised language to begin the discussion," and the motion was seconded. The clerk called a roll and the motion failed 3'to'5, as recorded in the roll call taken during the meeting. Hooten said that if the council votes for the mayor's compromise, "there is no need to go further" with his legal research; if the council votes no, he must determine whether the May 2 filing means the budget is deemed passed without cuts.

Why it matters: Under the cited state rule the council has a statutory timeframe to act on a filed budget; whether an amendment restarts that clock changes whether the council can effect cuts. If the budget is deemed adopted because of inaction, the council would lose its ability to enact reductions. The attorney's forthcoming determination could determine whether the council can still make additional cuts before the fiscal year begins.

What the council did and did not do: The council declined to vote in favor of beginning discussion on the mayor's proposed compromise language at that point. The meeting record shows the motion to adopt the mayor's compromise language for discussion failed 3'to'5. Hooten said he will complete research and communicate his decision to the council, and estimated he could issue a determination within roughly 48 hours.

Next steps: If the mayor and council reach agreement before Hooten's determination, the attorney said the state would not pursue the matter further. If no agreement is reached, Hooten will issue a legal opinion and the council may be required to proceed under the statutory 45-day timeline or accept the consequences of having the filed budget deemed adopted.