Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Balancing Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews 2026 budget 'Balancing Act'; commissioners signaled $6.5M general-fund gap
Summary
Advisory board members were briefed on the city’s Balancing Act exercise for the 2026 budget. Staff said commissioners’ preliminary preferences would reduce many Parks & Rec service levels; the tool does not automatically model revenue changes from fee increases.
Advisory board members received a detailed briefing on the City of Lawrence’s 2026 budget process and the Balancing Act public-engagement tool, which city staff and commissioners used to evaluate service levels and trade-offs to close a projected $6,500,000 general-fund shortfall for 2026.
Luis (Parks and Recreation staff) walked the board through the results staff compiled from commissioners’ Balancing Act inputs and from earlier citizen and employee committees. He said the Balancing Act translates service-level choices into approximate dollar impacts across the general fund and the eleven Parks and Recreation program budgets. Luis summarized that most general-fund service lines were marked for reductions under the commissioners’ current priorities; notable exceptions were aquatics and youth/adult sports, where commissioners signaled they wanted to maintain current service levels.
Staff and board members discussed specific figures presented in the tool. Luis said the parks, trails and open-space program has a roughly $5,500,000 budget and that a 5% reduction equals about $275,000 while a 20% reduction equals about $1,100,000. Staff cautioned the tool models expenditure changes only and does not automatically compute the revenue impact of service reductions. Mark (staff) explained the Balancing Act displays existing cost-recovery rates for some programs: aquatics was shown at roughly 30% cost recovery, wellness programming at about 60%, and golf at about 80%. Staff said cutting expenditure lines would likely reduce user-fee revenue for departments that recover costs through programming.
Board members asked about options to raise fees or restructure cost recovery to reduce cuts. Luis and Mark said fee increases are possible and that Parks and Recreation has more direct revenue levers than most general-fund departments; staff noted the Balancing Act does not include an automatic linkage between expense cuts and revenue loss, so staff will separately analyze fee, recovery and equity implications before any commission decisions.
The Balancing Act also asked commissioners whether they would support increasing property taxes to avoid service reductions; staff said three commissioners opposed tax increases and two were open to them. Staff urged board members and residents to use the Balancing Act website and attend two public, in-person sessions at Carnegie (one scheduled the day after the meeting and one on the 19th) to provide input. Staff noted the City Manager’s recommended budget is due to the Commission around July 8, 2025, with final adoption expected in September.
No formal board action was taken on the Balancing Act during the meeting; the session served as information and an invitation for board members to participate in the public process.
