Lawrence City Council delays multiple year-end revolving-fund reauthorizations after repeated tabling votes

The Lawrence City Council delayed final votes on multiple year-end revolving-fund reauthorizations at its most recent session, repeatedly using motions to table items that city staff said fund activities not covered in the general operating budget.

Councilors debated reauthorizations for Bellevue Cemetery, the Council on Aging (senior services), recreation and parks, Veterans Memorial Stadium, library programs, PEG access and DPW recycling revolving accounts. Several approval motions failed or were withdrawn; by the end of the discussion the council had tabled most of the items for later consideration.

Why it matters: the reauthorizations set maximum expenditure or carry-forward limits for departmental revolving funds that departments use for program activities outside the general budget. Staff told the council the funds pay for services such as senior-center activities, summer recreation programs and library services; delaying votes could affect budgets and program planning as the fiscal year ends.

The council opened discussion on Item 2-36-25, the reauthorization of the Bellevue Cemetery revolving fund with an expenditure limit of $95,000. Councilor LaPlante pressed colleagues for an explanation of repeated tabling, saying, “I don’t know why we’re making motions to table... we should have a fundamental understanding as to why we’re delaying the votes.”

City staff reported the cemetery had not spent the full $95,000 cap in fiscal 2025; a finance report cited in the meeting showed about $80,000 in expenditures for FY25. An initial motion to approve the cemetery item failed on roll call (2 yes, 5 no, 2 absent). After a motion to reconsider, the council later voted to table the item (the table motion carried on roll call, 7 yes, 0 no, 2 absent).

On Item 2-37-25, the reauthorization for a Council on Aging revolving fund (listed in committee materials with a $150,000 expenditure limit), Martha Velez, director of the Council on Aging, told the council the money “is for programs that go back to the seniors” and that departments rely on these revolving funds to run summer and seasonal programming. That item’s approval motion was withdrawn and a motion to table was passed by roll call.

Item 2-38-25, the recreation and park self-supporting service revolving fund, drew similar debate. The council was told the account carries funds forward under a separate statute (referred to in the meeting as a “Mass. general law” provision governing carry-forwards). An initial motion to approve failed on roll call (2 yes, 5 no, 2 absent). After a successful motion to reconsider, the council voted to table the item (table motion carried on roll call).

Items affecting Veterans Memorial Stadium (Item 2-39-25, $100,000 limit), library program revolving funds (Item 2-40-25, $50,000 limit) and PEG access/cable-related funds (Item 2-41-25) were also placed on the table after motions to table carried. The transcript contains inconsistent figures for the PEG/ cable item ($4,450,000 in one segment and $450,000 in a later segment); that discrepancy was not resolved on the record during the portion of the meeting provided.

Several councilors repeatedly expressed frustration with the parliamentary procedure and the lack of a publicly stated reason for tabling. As Councilor LaPlante put it during debate, “It is not fair for this councilor to not know why we’re doing these things because we can’t discuss it.” Council President Rodriguez and other members relied on members’ procedural rights to make and second tabling motions; several tabling motions were made after approval motions were withdrawn or after a failed approval vote and then carried by roll call.

Not all items reached final disposition in the excerpt provided. Item 2-42-25 (DPW recycling revolving fund, $150,000) had been reported out of committee in favor (committee vote referenced as 4–0), but a final council vote did not appear in the supplied transcript.

Votes at a glance

- Item 2-36-25 — Bellevue Cemetery revolving fund (expenditure limit $95,000): Motion to approve failed on roll call 2 yes, 5 no, 2 absent; later motion to table carried by roll call (7 yes, 0 no, 2 absent). (Provenance segments: topicintro / topfinish) - Item 2-37-25 — Council on Aging revolving fund (expenditure limit $150,000): Approval motion withdrawn; motion to table carried on roll call. (Provenance segments: topicintro / topfinish) - Item 2-38-25 — Recreation & Park self-supporting revolving fund (carry-forward limit $1,010,000 reported for carry-forward): Motion to approve failed on roll call 2 yes, 5 no, 2 absent; reconsideration passed; subsequent motion to table carried by roll call. (Provenance segments: topicintro / topfinish) - Item 2-39-25 — Veterans Memorial Stadium revolving fund (expenditure limit $100,000): Motion to table carried on roll call. (Provenance segments: topicintro / topfinish) - Item 2-40-25 — Library programs revolving fund (expenditure limit $50,000): Motion to table carried on roll call (majority in favor, two absences noted). (Provenance segments: topicintro / topfinish) - Item 2-41-25 — PEG access and cable-related funds revolving account (amount inconsistent in transcript: $4,450,000 and $450,000 reported): Motion to table carried on roll call. (Provenance segments: topicintro / topfinish) - Item 2-42-25 — DPW recycling revolving fund (expenditure limit $150,000): Reported out of committee in favor (committee vote cited as 4 in favor); final council vote not present in supplied transcript.

What councilors said and why it matters

Councilors who opposed immediate approval cited uncertainty about undisclosed reasons for delay and questioned the use of repeated tabling near the fiscal-year deadline. Councilors who supported tabling relied on parliamentary rights to withdraw or table motions; several said more information would be circulated to councilors before a future vote.

Martha Velez, director of the Council on Aging, said departments depend on revolving funds for program delivery: “This is money that we use for activities that are not covered through the general budget,” she said, adding the funds “go back to the seniors.”

Next steps

Councilors indicated at least some of the items will return to the floor for further consideration before the end of the fiscal year. Staff committed on the record to provide detailed revolving-account reports (requested for the Bellevue Cemetery account) and to resend meeting access information for remote participants struggling to join the session.

Ending note

The council’s extensive use of tabling left most of the year-end revolving-fund reauthorizations unresolved in the portion of the meeting provided; several departments warned they rely on those accounts for near-term program operations. The council will take up the items again at a later meeting, with staff expected to supply detailed expenditure and revenue reports in advance.