NORTHAMPTON — The City Council failed to pass the proposed fiscal year 2026 vote after a 5-3 vote in favor of its passing did not meet the required two-thirds threshold to pass, but under state law the originally proposed budget by Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra (as amended) will now go into effect July 1.
Under the city’s charter, the city budget must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the council or six votes. Council President Alex Jarrett spoke in favor of the mayor’s proposed budget but due to his daytime role in running the Pedal People co-operative collection service he had to recuse himself from the final vote. That ended up being the difference in its pass-fail status.
The Pedal People co-operative has a contract with the city’s Central Services, so Jarrett could not vote on approving the budget that funds the department.
The new budget represents a 4.8% increase from FY25, with $129.5 million in the city’s general fund and the remaining to be used across the city’s four enterprise funds. School funding, where the contention on the budget has mainly come from, makes up about 43% of funds.
The council’s failure to pass means Sciarra’s originally proposed budget, as amended, will now go into effect on July 1, according to state law. The council will need to reconvene sometime before the new fiscal year begins in a special meeting to address an additional $217,000 Sciarra pledged to the schools a week prior.
The failed budget vote is a repeat from last year’s budget season with the three no votes coming from Ward 3 Councilor Quaverly Rothenberg, Ward 4 Councilor Jeremy Dubs and Ward 7 Councilor Rachel Maiore. All three councilors cited the lack of funding for the school district as reasoning for their no votes.
The week prior Sciarra announced through reallocation of some funds they would be adding $217,000 to the schools $43.8 million FY26 budget but still dissenters felt the schools were being shorted. This amount would be enough to prevent layoffs in the schools but still is short of maintaining current services and would lead to some reductions.
Rothenberg, the most vocal opponent to the mayor’s proposed budget, said she could not vote for a budget that was still $2.5 million short of the school district’s initial “strong budget” proposal, let alone about a half million off still from a level services budget.
“If we’re $2.6 million short on the strong budget, that’s the budget the School Committee told us they needed to get the work done. That’s their purview,” Rothenberg said.
Maiore said she could not vote for the budget either due to the lack of funding for the schools but also because she felt the city needed to pivot its approach in order to solve these underfunding issues and not allow it to continue to recur in future years.
“A below level services school budget without a short-term action plan guarantees a crisis in perpetuity and normalizes the idea that our schools are OK with less and that is unacceptable,” said Maiore. “What I would support is a results driven, time sensitive plan led by the mayor’s office and the school department to assess student needs in a systematic way that prioritizes students and staff.”
Maiore added she had hoped to see one-time funds used for basic needs like supplies for district staff as well as the use of reserves for key special education staffing.
“We already know that need is going to grow. This is predictable and I would like to change this culture that we’re in. As leaders that is our job,” Maiore said.
Before the final vote Councilor At-Large Marissa Elkins made a last effort request to fellow councilors to pass the budget to make up for the absence of Jarrett in the final vote and avoid a repeat of last year.
“It is out of respect for the body and what we’ve just done in this discussion and this process,” said Elkins. “It is worth considering whether or not we honor all of that discussion and process and procedure if we then fail to pass a budget that, when we talked about it in its separate parts, did in fact pass.”
Elkins was referring to the 7-2 vote to adopt the proposed budget with amendments that took place shortly before the final vote. The vote was only to approve the amendments made to the budget. Jarrett then recused himself for the votes on the enterprise funds — all of which were approved — and final budget vote meaning the two-thirds threshold was no longer met with three no votes.
“This is the mayor’s budget, and the mayor had one and a half years to achieve consensus,” said Rothenberg in response to Elkins request before the vote. “I think out of respect for the way we work as representatives, in consultation with the mayor in trying to negotiate with her, this is where we have landed and however we vote will be a reflection of that.”
School spending continues to be a divisive issue among the council and community at large. Support Our Schools Political Action Committee was born in response to the ongoing concerns from the public about the district’s schools and has pledged to support candidates that favor higher school spending.
In a release following Sciarra’s announcement of the additional $217,000 being added to the school budget the group said,“… the mayor has been ‘finding’ money here and there for the schools, the truth is these additions still leave critical positions and programs unfunded. These last-minute ‘surprises’ generate good press for the mayor, but they do not solve our school system’s serious funding problems.”
While the budget did not officially pass, a majority of councilors said while the city needs to find a better approach to this repeated issue, Jarrett said this proposal from Sciarra still was the city looking out for its finances as best it could.
“Do we need more school funding? Yes, and we need more funding in many areas too. But we have to live within our means. And it continues to be my heartfelt belief that more money for the schools or other departments would put us in a bad financial position in the years to come which would hurt the schools and other departments in the long term,” said Jarrett during councilor’s closing thoughts before the votes. “I’m open to discussing the tradeoffs while staying within the total budget that we have, but I don’t think there is extra money that won’t be used now or in the future.”
Elkins called this time in the city’s history an “inflection point” due to its changing demographics, its “extraordinary” fiscal environment and due to the effects of the pandemic.
“The difficulty for us is that we can’t make that plan, we just can appropriate the money,” said Elkins. “I think we are all in agreement. We love our kids. We want the best for them, we all do. There’s nobody here with hidden intentions to minimize or disregard anybody’s lived experiences and the reality of what they’re dealing with. It’s regrettable that people would come here and say to us that we don’t love our own kids.”
The full meeting, discussion and vote is available via recording on the Northampton Government Video Archive YouTube channel.
