The Lawrence City Common Council on Dec. 29 approved an amendment to Ordinance Proposal No. 12, 2025, adding $857,000 in appropriations to the city’s 2025 budget, including raising a general‑fund legal‑fees line to $131,000. Councilors voted individually after a public hearing and a short recess to reconcile invoice and notice figures.

The amendment grew from an earlier $828,000 request after staff and councilors disagreed over whether the published notice and an email reflected the correct amount for legal invoices to the law firm Frost Brown Todd. "The notice that was published specifically said the taxpayers appearing at the meeting shall have the right to be heard," the council attorney said while defending the legal sufficiency of the published notice. Resident Daniel Rapp objected to the process and said public statements and monthly reports showed inconsistent figures: "The numbers are either being manipulated or we're all being played," he said during public comment.

City staff explained the appropriation package targets specific line‑item deficits rather than an overall general‑fund shortfall. "We are requesting additional funding to satisfy that line item deficit," the controller said, describing the general‑fund request as funding for "professional services" tied to council business. Councilors pressed staff about why some items—particularly emergency medical services (EMS) personal‑service costs and a debt service payment for an energy‑savings project—were not flagged earlier in the budget process.

Tim Berry of Crowe, the city's financial advisor, told the council that addressing a prior‑year shortfall requires a supplemental appropriation for the current fiscal year and that end‑of‑year additional appropriations are common practice: "An additional appropriation for this year would need to be made for this year's budget," he said. Councilors continued to question why accrued payroll and overtime had created a $150,000 EMS shortfall and whether the energy‑savings bond payment had been budgeted; staff and counsel said the bond payment was an obligation that required appropriation regardless of whether rebate or project revenue had been drawn down.

After a 10‑minute recess to confirm figures, a councilor announced administration agreement to raise the general‑fund legal‑fees line to $131,000. Councilor Chambers moved to amend the ordinance to $857,000 in total and to increase the general‑fund amount to $131,000; a second was recorded and the amendment carried on individual votes. The council then voted to approve Proposal No. 12, 2025 as amended.

The ordinance change is procedural: councilors and legal staff said the ordinance language governs the appropriation amount and that higher newspaper notice figures may be published to provide authorization but the council decides the final appropriation. The attorney also advised that publication language giving taxpayers the right to be heard met the legal notice requirement for the additional appropriation public hearing.

The council did not take further formal action on the performance claims about the energy‑savings contractor during the meeting; staff said the city would draw down project revenue and reconcile reimbursements after appropriate audits and processes. The meeting record shows the council closed the public hearing and recorded the votes approving the amended ordinance.