Lawrence council reviews $420.8 million FY2026 budget; debate focuses on tax increase, police and fire line items

The Lawrence City Council held a public hearing June 16 on Mayor Brian A. De Pena’s proposed fiscal year 2026 operating budget, a plan that the administration and city finance staff say would appropriate $420,801,026 for the general fund and $23,778,191 for enterprise funds.

The administration’s package was read into the record by Mayor Brian A. De Pena and certified for legal sufficiency by acting chief administrative and financial officer Ramona Caraballo. Caraballo read a required certification under Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2010 and later clarified the administration’s revenue assumption: the budget as proposed reflects a tax increase equal to Proposition 2½ (2.5%) plus $1.2 million in new growth, producing a net proposed tax increase of about 3.58%. “Tax increase is what we currently have in the budget,” Caraballo said when asked to confirm wording that appeared in a distributed memo as “override.”

Why it matters: the council’s vote on the appropriation will set tax revenue assumptions and the level of funding for public safety, schools and other city services. City leaders told the council they face uncertainty from recent federal funding reductions and other state and federal policy changes that could alter grant support for infrastructure, housing and public health programs.

Major budget numbers and context - Total general fund budget listed in the published order: $469,611,865; after permitted deductions (state and county assessments) the amount to be appropriated for the general fund was stated as $420,801,026. Enterprise funds were shown at about $23.78 million. - The proposed tax increase was described to the council as approximately 3.58%, the sum of a 2.5% levy limit increase and $1.2 million in new growth, net of an allowance for abatements and exemptions. - The administration said it used level-funded assumptions for many departments and may rely on reserves, adjusted fees and targeted use of new revenue to manage shortfalls if federal or state aid is reduced.

Public testimony Several residents spoke during the public hearing. H. Malley and other longtime residents urged the council to support unions, to raise pay for cafeteria workers and long-serving city employees, and to add inspectors and veterans’ services. Rich Russell, a resident who reviewed budget tables posted online, questioned recent hires and salary increases and urged careful review of new positions; he told the council, “I’m getting sick and tired of seeing money go out my wallet.” School committee member Myra Ortiz praised the budget committee’s work and pressed the council to ensure repairs and staffing needs at Lawrence Public Schools, including attention to stadium and cafeteria conditions.

CAFO certification and revenue assumptions Ramona Caraballo, the city’s acting CAFO, certified the budget under state law and explicitly corrected wording in the administration’s memo that had used the word “override.” She told the council the correct description is a tax increase under Proposition 2½ plus new-growth dollars. Caraballo explained the arithmetic behind the 3.58% figure: applying 2.5% to the prior levy, adding $1.2 million new growth and subtracting allowances for abatements yielded an increase of roughly $3.16 million (about 3.58%).

Council debate and amendment activity Council members opened the appropriation order for amendment and discussion. The most contested amendment proposed cutting $175,000 from police department personal services (an item the proponent tied to a proposed deputy chief position). The cut was proposed to redirect funds toward council priorities such as sidewalks and patrols.

- The amendment to cut $175,000 was moved and seconded and received an initial roll-call tally that fell short of the proponent’s aim. After procedural wrangling—councilors debated whether a majority or a six-vote supermajority applied for budget amendments and the council briefly reconsidered the vote—proponent Councilor LaPlante withdrew the amendment. Police Chief Maurice Aguilar had urged caution about cutting the line item, saying the department was short roughly 26–29 sworn officers and that the department needed flexibility for recruitment, retention and training. "I can't afford to lose $175,000," the chief said in the meeting.

- Several councilors and the mayor’s office said the administration would work with the council to clarify how the $175,000 would be used (for overtime, recruitment incentives or a position) and that any formal reauthorization of a deputy chief position would require council approval. The administration indicated it would provide a confirming memo to the council clarifying the planned use of funds.

- A separate amendment proposing to remove an assistant fire chief position (roughly $150,000 in personal services) drew extended discussion. Acting fire leadership described operational and grant-related reasons for the position, including managing inspections and pursuing a FEMA grant that could fund additional temporary staffing. That amendment’s sponsor later withdrew the motion after receiving commitments from the administration to work with the council on priorities for fire prevention and inspections.

- Councilors also debated a $105,000 emergency management line item. Several council members asked for a written emergency-management plan or a professional-services analysis that would define duties and deliverables before approving a permanent new staff line. A motion to table further action on the emergency-management item was made and seconded for follow-up at a later meeting.

Process and legal questions Councilors and staff examined the legal threshold for amendments. City staff cited Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44, Section 32 (which allows the council by majority vote to reduce or reject recommended amounts) and the city charter’s language that has required six votes to adopt appropriation orders. Councilors said past practice had used a supermajority for final adoption and that committee-level review should resolve many details before final votes. The council asked the administration to provide written clarifications and any revised budget pages that reflect agreed reallocations.

What’s next The council opened final consideration of the FY2026 appropriation order. Councilors and the administration agreed to continue working on memo language and on written clarifications to reflect reallocations (for example, moving a $175,000 personal-services line to purchase-of-services for training or overtime). The administration said it would supply a confirming memo to the council and the council indicated some items would be revisited at the next scheduled meetings this week; the appropriation must be finalized before the fiscal year begins July 1.

Details and limits This article reports only statements and vote results recorded on the June 16 transcript. It does not assume outcomes that were not recorded (for example, final passage of any reallocation or the results of future supplemental appropriation requests).