Akron council narrowly approves 2026 operating budget after debate over police staffing and oversight board pay

Akron City Council voted to adopt the citys fiscal 2026 operating budget on the night the council met its March 31 charter deadline, approving the ordinance 11 to 2 after extended debate about public-safety staffing and compensation for the Citizens Police Oversight Board.

The measure, described in committee as the annual operating appropriation for fiscal 2026, was presented with a favorable committee report and the council suspended its rules to vote on the ordinance the same evening.

The debate focused on two fault lines: council members who said the proposed reductions to public-safety line items risked response capacity, and others who supported modest increases for citizen oversight and for other boards. "If we're buying more space for body worn camera footage, we should make sure we're funding the people wearing them," said Brian Lucey, president of Akron FOP 7, during public comment, warning that a proposed $2,000,000 cut to the police budget would eliminate what he estimated as 26,000 hours of police work in 2026.

Councilman Kammer said he would oppose the operating budget, citing recent weekend emergencies in his ward and what he described as insufficient staffing in police, fire and emergency medical services. "This weekend, we had tragedy in Ward 7," he said, urging greater investment in safety forces.

Other council members pushed back on framing that set public safety and oversight against one another. Councilman Garrett urged support for both the police and the Citizens Review Board, and Councilman Fusco — whose retirement was acknowledged later in the meeting — asked that any increases in board stipends be preceded by a comprehensive review of all citizen boards.

City finance staff warned of the legal and financial consequences of failing to pass a budget by the charter date. "If the budget doesn't get passed, we're going to be in violation of Ohio law," said Angeloni, a city finance official, adding that the city could default on capital leases and face immediate bond-rating damage that would raise borrowing costs for years.

After the roll-call vote the clerk recorded 11 ayes and 2 nays (Kammer and Lombardo); the ordinance passed and the council moved on to other business.

The councils action leaves in place the contested provisions but also includes commitments from administration and staff to provide data and to study board compensation and staffing issues. Council members who opposed the ordinance cited those outstanding concerns as the reason for their votes. The council did not adopt any procedural changes to alter the March 31 deadline cited by staff.