Cambridge finance committee hears public pleas to continue Rise Up as staff warn FY26 has little new room

Councilor Patty Nolan, co‑chair of the Cambridge Finance Committee, opened a public meeting Feb. 26 to solicit council priorities ahead of the FY2026 budget, and members spent much of the session weighing whether the city can sustain new recurring programs after one‑time federal ARPA funding ended.

Public commenters urged the council to continue a guaranteed‑income pilot called Rise Up. "It was a huge help for me and my children," said Tamika McKinney, a Cambridge resident who testified about how the $500 monthly payments allowed her to prioritize essential expenses. Tina Allu, director at CEOC, told the committee the Rise Up pilot provided cash assistance to "1,923 families," saying the payments helped recipients pay rent, utilities and childcare and increased their ability to withstand emergencies. "Including future funding, even scaled back, is critical for our low‑income families," Allu said.

City Manager John Huang and CFO Spinner responded that Rise Up had been implemented with ARPA federal funds and was structured as one‑time assistance. "We did not budget for a future Rise Up program," Huang said; staff told the committee they would bring a follow‑up analysis in March that could explore a scoped successor but cautioned the city cannot simply recreate the ARPA model out of existing FY2026 operating funds.

That constraint comes amid an administration target to limit operating‑budget growth to no more than 4% for FY2026. Spinner told councilors that a 4% operating target could translate into roughly an 8% property‑tax increase given the city's current revenue base. Staff attributed the ability to hit the 4% target in part to a change in near‑term pension funding assumptions that lowered year‑to‑year pension costs; they warned that most of the projected $38 million in fiscal space is already spoken for by recurring obligations such as salaries, benefits, debt service and the planned rollout of universal pre‑K (UPK).

Councilors debated how to identify priorities if discretionary funds are limited. "If we do find ourselves in a place where we have some money left, I want as much as possible to go to people who are most vulnerable," Vice Mayor McGovern said, referencing Rise Up as an example. Others urged caution. Co‑chair Councilor Toner recommended focusing on maintaining current services and prioritizing day‑to‑day infrastructure work over adopting new recurring programs this year.

Staff suggested two practical paths: the council could (1) agree on a top priority and direct city staff to scope and cost that initiative, or (2) identify specific reductions in existing spending to create room for new commitments. City Manager Huang and CFO Spinner urged a prioritization exercise, noting that some projects (for example, park renovations funded by Community Preservation Act dollars) do not affect the operating budget while many other expenses are recurring and thus harder to accommodate.

Councilors raised technical and revenue questions: staff explained the role of Cherry Sheet state aid and assessments, noted that the city’s current budget base is roughly $955 million, and said opioid‑settlement proceeds (estimated at about $1 million per year) would likely be used for new prevention and treatment programming rather than to offset ongoing operating costs.

The committee did not take formal votes. Chair Nolan said staff will bring additional materials and options and that the committee will revisit priorities at a follow‑up session scheduled for April 16; staff also suggested an additional preparatory meeting before that date to help the council firm up a top priority or a set of cuts and revenue scenarios.

Why it matters: Councilors and staff agree the city faces a near‑term fiscal squeeze driven by federal funding cliffs, debt‑service increases and inflationary pressures. The committee’s direction this spring will determine whether the council pursues a one‑time successor to Rise Up, moves to fund a scaled municipal program, or pursues other priorities (municipal broadband, expanded after‑school seats, UPK) in future budgets.

The committee adjourned without a vote and with staff committed to return with analysis on possible successor programs, the administrative/legal constraints for using local funds, and scoped revenue/cut options to inform the April budget timeline.