Note: The Lawrence Times runs opinion columns and letters to the Times written by community members with varying perspectives on local issues. These pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Times staff.
Would you like to send a letter to the Times? Great! Here’s how to do it.
The Lawrence City Commission is considering big budgetary decisions this year, including:
• Increasing our property tax rate,
• Cutting departmental budgets and charging rec center fees to address a $6.6 million deficit, which is the largest operating deficit the city has faced, and
• Approving $126 million in debt-funded infrastructure projects, which is more than they’ve taken on in any year other than 2025.
The city invites our community to tell the commission how we feel about their budget decisions as part of their budget public hearing this Tuesday, Sept. 2. You can share your opinion about how the city should spend our tax dollars by writing an email to commissioners@lawrenceks.org and ccagendas@lawrenceks.org before noon on Tuesday, or speak at their meeting, which starts at 5:45 p.m. at City Hall, 6 E. Sixth St.
Lawrence residents’ property tax bills have risen considerably in the last five years because our property values have increased 40%. So the city has collected substantially more property tax revenue during that time, but they haven’t increased the property tax rate. This year, they are considering raising the property tax rate, called the mill levy, from 33.197 mills to 33.986, which the city’s agenda item report says would increase taxes on a $270,000 house by $25 per year.
The city is proposing funding cuts to most city departments’ budgets, including Parks & Rec, Fire-Medical, and Police (page 16). They are also proposing user fees for the city’s recreation facilities, and in response to community feedback, they are considering lower fees than originally proposed and free access for youth ages 17 and under (pages 20-21). All of these changes combined are expected to balance the city’s 2026 budget.
The commission’s 2026 debt decisions are particularly important because our community will pay for this debt for the next 25 years. If the city approves the proposed 2026 debt, they will have approved $355 million worth of debt in three years, for an average of $118 million per year. Previously, the most they had ever approved was $60 million.
The city has committed to this debt because they have identified where we have most needed improvements to our streets, waterlines, stormwater drainage system and water treatment plant. They have also invested in a $130 million campus for our Municipal Services & Operations department that takes care of our city’s infrastructure.
The Coalition for Collaborative Governance has researched the city’s debt situation, trying to understand if the city’s proposed debt is sustainable for our community. In response to multiple requests for this information, the city recently published a chart (page 19) showing how the city plans to pay for the debt that our property taxes support.
This chart shows that if the commission approves all debt proposed through 2030, the debt payments paid by our property taxes will be $22 million in 2030, which is 80% more than this year’s debt payment. The city is able to afford these larger debt payments because they are using cash reserves to cover some of each year’s payments.
But by 2032, the city will have spent all the reserves that their current policies allow them to use. This means that the cost of the city’s proposed debt is expected to be greater than the city’s resources to pay for that debt in 2033-2035.
Significantly, these projections also assume that the city will only take out approximately $6 million in annual debt in 2031-2035. This is only 5% of the average annual debt the city will be taking out in 2024-2026. This means that the city’s current debt decisions may significantly limit the city’s future capacity to take on more debt for planned or unplanned infrastructure needs during the 2030s.
It is worth noting that all of these projections are based on an expected 4% increase in annual property valuations, so the city may have more or less money to pay for their debt depending on our property valuations in the 2030s.
The other half of the city’s debt is tied to our utility fees, which have increased 18% in the last two years. These fees are anticipated to increase close to 10% again next year, which will likely have a larger financial impact on households than the proposed mill levy increase.
We have repeatedly asked for a chart demonstrating the city’s plan for paying for this debt that is tied to our utility fees. Although the city has answered many of our other questions, they have not provided details about how the city is planning to pay for this half of their debt, which we anticipate will be about $300 million by 2030.
The city commissioners have met with members of our coalition in the last week to hear our concerns and consider our recommendation that the city consult with their municipal adviser to confirm the sustainability of their proposed debt. We greatly appreciate their attention to these issues, and we hope the commission continues discussing them to make sure that the debt decisions they make this year are maximally responsible and sustainable for our community.
We also want to thank the city’s finance and communications department for instituting a new community engagement tool regarding the city budget. They have answered tons of budget questions from our coalition and other community members and published those answers in the 2026 Budget Q&As. If you have budget questions, you can email them to budget@lawrenceks.org.
About the writer
Holly Krebs (she/her) is the lead organizer of the Coalition for Collaborative Governance. She has a background in public policy and was a Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commissioner before changing career paths to become a health care practitioner. She is a longtime Lawrencian who operates Kinetikos Healing Collective and is the mother of three children.
If this local platform matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
More Community Voices:
Tom Harper/Lawrence Times
Max Kautsch: In loco parentis, or just plain loco – Surveilling Kansas students doesn’t make sense (Column)
“The outcome of the case will depend largely on whether the district can show that implementing software designed to monitor students the way it did was closely related enough to an important government interest — namely, student safety — to justify Gaggle’s intrusion into the students’ lives,” Max Kautsch writes in this Kansas Reflector column.
