City Council Approves Amended Budget… For Now

---

IN A NUTSHELL:

The Laurel City Council passed an amended version of the Fiscal Year 2027 budget, 3–2 with no abstentions, but Mayor Keith Sydnor non-concurred and reserved the right to veto. At issue was one line item that would fund a $1 million housing assistance program administered by local non-profit group LARS. Council members voiced support for the intent of the program but felt that the line item was not introduced properly, and thus adopted an amended budget that removed that specific allocation with the intention of potential future adoption.

---

By Diane Mezzanotte, Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Council Budget Meeting Focuses on “the $1 Million Surprise” 

Adoption of the city’s annual budget generally is not a topic that fills city hall, but dozens of people showed up at Wednesday night’s Laurel City Council meeting to testify. Most of them spoke to one topic that had caused much discussion at previous council work sessions and public meetings: a line item by Mayor Keith Sydnor to allocate $1 million toward an assistance program that would be managed by the Laurel Area Referral Services (LARS). A 10-percent fee for services ($100,000) would go to LARS for their management of the program.

In the days leading up to the council meeting, Sydnor had championed the program to the public in a series of social media posts; he extolled the work of LARS, which has partnered with the city for decades, and explained that the program would provide $750 a month to 100 eligible families for one year, in order to help them meet rising expenses and ensure that they remain housed; recipients would also receive counseling and training on how to manage their finances. Sydnor’s proposal would fund the program with interest income from COVID relief funds that the city had, wisely, invested in high-yield accounts. While it would not be the first time the interest income was used for projects, this would mark the largest withdrawal from that source.

At earlier work sessions, council members had expressed concerns over both the large amount of the allocation—which Councilmember Adrian Simmons pointed out marked the fourth-largest expenditure in the entire budget—and by what they called a last-minute “surprise” addition by the mayor. Simmons stated on May 6 that council members had not been told anything about the proposal in advance or asked for input; he added that it wasn’t even mentioned in the budget’s three-page cover letter that provides highlights and summaries. Questions were also raised over whether the proposed agreement with LARS represented a no-bid contract, and whether LARS should be the sole non-profit organization involved in administering the program. With those concerns in mind, Simmons and fellow Councilmember James Kole introduced an amendment that would remove the $1-million line item from the budget with the aim of examining the program details, obtaining community input, and potentially adding it later as an amendment.  

At Wednesday’s meeting, about 20 people spoke during the public hearing session, most of them to stress the need for the program and to talk about how good LARS has been for the community. Two people spoke as former clients; they credited LARS with turning their lives around by providing crucial assistance when it was most needed. Several staff members from LARS spoke, who assured the council that their certified case managers would run a successful program that “would not be a charity case, but rather a partnership program.” LARS Executive Director Shannon Mouton emphasized that the program would be in good hands with her staff of experienced case managers, and would not be the first of its kind: “This is not a pilot; this will be a deployment.” 

Some residents, however, expressed discontent with the limited number of recipients, noting that homeowners, like tenants, are also having a hard time keeping up with bills. One speaker felt that the money should be used for everyone, not just 100 families. Another person called it “reckless” to have not opened the idea up to discussion, and another urged the council to “take a beat” to consider the program using a deliberate process to find a way for the money to benefit everyone.

Votes are Cast

When it came time to vote on the amendment to remove the $1 million line item, Simmons assured the in-person audience that the council, to a person, were appreciative of LARS and were not opposed to the program’s concept. Rather, it was the “surprise” element that concerned the council; he recommended that residents watch the in-depth discussions that occurred during work sessions. Kole called the topic a “moving target” which had yielded several updates and changes over the previous 24 days, which he said was part of the difficulty for council. Ultimately, the amendment was passed 4–1, with Council President Brencis Smith being the only no vote. Councilmember Kyla Clark, in her comments, said she needed more details about the program in order to be a good steward of the taxpayers’ money, and she wished to see the proposal “submitted through proper channels.”

On a related note, the council also passed an amendment that would increase the amount of money budgeted for contracts with Laurel’s two newspapers—Voices of Laurel and the Laurel Independent—and change the categorization of both allocations from “grants” to “advertising.” The amendment allots $6,000 for Voices of Laurel and $45,000 for the Independent, which is mailed to all city residents as part of the original agreement with the city. Much discussion among council members and testimony from residents over several weeks had led to those figures; Sydnor had originally submitted a cut to $30,000 for the Independent. That amendment passed 4-1; Councilmember Jeff Mills cast the dissenting vote, having previously expressed his opposition to funding any newspaper.

With both amendments having passed, it came time for the vote on the budget ordinance. Kole, Clark, and Simmons voted yes; Mills voted no and Smith, after some hesitation, also voted no. Mayor Sydnor stated his non-concurrence and reserved the right to veto. Under Laurel’s city ordinances, Sydnor has 30 days to submit a veto, in writing, to the council, who in turn could override the veto with 4 votes.

Council Statements 

Following the meeting’s adjournment, all the council members spoke with Voices of Laurel; their statements are below. Mayor Sydnor quickly left the room, and calls to his office for comment have not yet been returned.

Kyla Clark, Ward 2:

(Yes) “I’d like to thank the great organizations we have in the city, who do important work. As a council member, we are avowed to ensure legitimate and fair practices that allow us to make good decisions. That’s what we did here today.” 

Adrian Simmons, Ward 1:

(Yes) “The real consideration here is allowing community and council input. No one else had a voice in [the proposed program’s] creation. It behooves us to take the time to go to the table.”

James Kole, Ward 1:

(Yes) The budget as amended funds a lot of good things, and we can move forward with it;  more input is needed for that extra $1 million. It should have happened with council and community input.

Jeff Mills, Ward 2:

(No) “I don’t wish to give away the city’s money for free, without proof of documentation and a structured plan. And that applies to both amendments.”

Brencis Smith, At-Large Councilmember and Council President:

(No) “We need to come together. There was no way to pass [the budget] as it is until we meet In the middle. What can we still do if the amount is reduced? I voted no tonight to force negotiations. I wanna see [the project proposal] succeed. So, how can we cross that bridge together? Right now there’s a lot of water between us. That’s the point of my vote.”

(Photo: Diane Mezzanotte/Voices of Laurel)