It is donation season in the world of Lawrence politics. Voters may be looking for donations of earplugs. (We did, after all, just have two candidate forums within a span of 10 hours, a health forum last night and one with Downtown Lawrence Inc. this morning.) But candidates are seeking campaign donations, and the most recent report on how much they’ve raised is out.

In a nutshell, Stuart Boley, the third-place finisher in the primary election, was the top fundraiser in this most recent reporting period. Boley raised $8,011.95 between Feb. 20 and March 26. That’s more than $2,000 better than any of his competitors. If you remember, the top three vote winners in the April 7 election will receive a seat on the commission. So, Boley finished the primary right on the edge.

Here’s a summary of all the candidates’ fundraising activity. You can see their complete reports that list the names of individual donors and how much the candidates are spending on advertising and such at the Douglas County Clerk’s website.

• Contributors who gave the maximum $500 donation to Boley were: Michael Wasikowski, an operations research analyst for U.S. government; Ellen Reid Gold, a retired professor; NE Kansas Building & Construction Trades Council; and Michael Wasikowski again. Individuals are allowed to give a maximum of $500 before the primary election and another $500 after the primary. Wasikowski’s donations met that requirement, according to the report filed by Boley’s campaign.

• Matthew Herbert, a Lawrence High teacher and owner of a property management company, raised $3,075. Contributors who gave the maximum $500 donation were: Mike Wasikowski, an operations research analyst for U.S. government; and the Kansas Realtors PAC. Those of you who look at Herbert’s filing may notice a $150 donation from Oread LLC. To limit confusion, that company is not associated with The Oread hotel. Herbert has been critical of City Commission action to give tax breaks to hotel companies, including The Oread. Oread LLC is a company controlled by Lawrence developer and apartment complex owner Duane Schwada.

• Stan Rasmussen, an attorney for the U.S. Army, raised $5,310 during the period. Contributors who gave the maximum $500 donation were: LBRE, LLC, a real estate organization; Anderson Family Trust; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #441; NE Kansas Building and Construction Trades Council; and the Kansas Realtors PAC. Rasmussen was in the news recently for his previous acceptance of about $4,500 in contributions from the Crossland family and its businesses, which are based in southeast Kansas and noted for support of conservative causes across the state. Rasmussen’s most recent report listed no contributions from that family. More on that below.

• Terry Riordan, a current city commissioner and a Lawrence physician, raised $6,063 during the period. However, $2,728 came from a loan from himself. Contributors who gave the maximum $500 donation were: Kansas Realtors PAC.

• Bob Schumm, a current city commissioner and retired restaurant owner, raised $4,285 during the period. Contributors who gave the maximum $500 donation were: William and Karla Fleming, an attorney in real estate development; Treanor Consulting, a local architecture and development firm; Flint Hills Development Group, a developer in the East Lawrence warehouse arts district; Sally Hare-Schriner, an arts educator; and Daniel Schriner, a builder/filmmaker.

• Leslie Soden, the owner of a Lawrence pet sitting company, raised $2,765 during the reporting period. Contributors who gave the maximum $500 donation were: Elaine St. James, a writer.

It is important to remember that this most recent report covers just one reporting period. There have been three periods during the campaign. When you add them all up, the fundraising race shakes out this way:

1. Rasmussen: $25,100

2. Schumm: $18,440

3. Riordan: $14,728, although he has given himself more than $3,000 in loans.

4. Boley: $13,041

5. Herbert: $9,900

6. Soden: $6,984

So, what does all that mean when it comes to who will win in the April 7 election? Well, perhaps not as much as it used to. If you remember, Soden was the 1st place finisher in the primary election, and she’s raised the least amount of money. Schumm, with more than $18,000 in campaign funds, finished sixth in the primary.

Now, as many stockbrokers from Leavenworth will tell you, past results aren’t a predictor of future performance, but the role money is playing in local elections does seem to be changing. My theory is that social media has made it easier to build successful grassroots campaigns, and a good grassroots campaign is still enough to get you elected in a relatively small town like Lawrence. I think the election that may go down as Exhibit 1 for that theory is the sales tax election for a new police headquarters. Supporters of that sales tax just crushed the opponents of the sales tax in terms of money raised and spent on the campaign. But the sales tax still failed at the polls.

Another number that I found interesting is that the amount of money flowing into local City Commission races is down from our high-water mark by quite a bit. By my memory, the 2007 election was kind of the zenith for campaign donations for City Commission races. I pulled up our old article on that race and found that Mike Dever during that campaign raised a whopping $35,610. Rob Chestnut was close behind at $33,978. Others raised a lot, too. That 2007 race attracted a little more than $128,000 in campaign donations to the six finalists. That’s compared to about $88,000 in this race.

One thing to keep an eye on, though, is political action committees that spend money on their own to get a candidate elected. Those dollars don’t show up in the candidates contributions. If a PAC donates directly to a candidate, that shows up on the candidate’s report. But if a PAC sends out a mailer asking voters to support a candidate, that doesn’t show up on a candidate’s report. Some of that has been going on. Thus far, the real estate community has been the most frequent mailer in the campaign, I believe.

But the relatively new local PAC Lawrence United has not been a big player yet in this election. Two years ago it was one of the bigger spenders on the campaign scene. But this time the group, which promotes a pro-growth agenda, has been quiet. The group reported that it received no donations during this most recent period, and that it only spent $99 on some campaign analytics. The group, however, still has more than $15,000 left over from the last election that it could spend in the final days of the campaign. No word on whether the group plans to become active in the closing days of the race.

In other news and notes around town:

• Rasmussen notified me this morning that he has sent refund checks to members of the Crossland family, which had donated about $4,500 to his city commission campaign. The contributions had caused some members of the public to raise concerns because the Crossland family is based outside of Lawrence and has been active in statewide politics and promoting conservative causes.

A Crossland-owned construction company also is bidder for the approximately $50 million wastewater treatment plant, which is a bid the next commission will award. Rasmussen said that fact particularly troubled him, and played a role in his decision to return the money. (The Crossland bid came after the family had made a donation to Rasmussen’s campaign, in case you are interested in the timing of it.)

Rasmussen released this statement about the matter:

“I have reflected on questions and concerns that have been raised about out of town campaign contributions I accepted from the Crossland family and some of their businesses. I take these concerns seriously.

“I’m sorry I accepted these funds. I am not an experienced politician.  I have never before run for office.  When the campaign began, I sent an e-mail to friends and associates from across the state asking for contributions to my campaign.  I have received donations from a variety of people, and a total of $4,500 was received from a Leadership Kansas classmate of mine, several businesses he owns, and his family. These were some of the very first contributions I received, and at the time, I was appreciative and excited for the investment in my campaign. However, I was naive to not recognize the potential for concern in receiving a large sum of money from a single business interest.  To compound this error in judgment, I have now learned that Crossland Construction was one of the bidders on the City’s new wastewater treatment project, and that troubles me greatly. While I do not feel that I’ve been inappropriately influenced by the contributions, I understand why people may question that. I can’t just talk about transparency and trust. I must also act with integrity.

“This has been a good learning experience for me, and I am trying to do everything I can to make it right. On Monday morning, I contacted the Kansas Governmental Ethics Office for information on how to return the funds even though the checks were cashed and the money spent during the primary. Based on their advice, refund checks were mailed on Monday afternoon to Mr. Crossland, his family and his businesses.”

• There’s a new memo out of Lawrence City Hall that also may get some talk in the final days of the campaign. City Manager David Corliss has provided his most detailed explanation yet for how the city could build a new $26 million police headquarters building without raising property or sales taxes. As we have reported before, the crux of any such proposal would involve delaying several other projects. Now we have a list of projects that Corliss has identified for delay. Here’s a look:

• The rehabilitation of Fire Station No. 1 — the station located downtown — would be moved from 2015-16 to 2018-19;

• The reconstruction of Kasold Drive from Sixth Street to Bob Billings would be moved from 2016-17 to 2017-18;

• Construction of 19th Street from Harper to the new VenturePark would be moved from 2016 to 2017;

•The reconstruction of Wakarusa Drive from Inverness/Legends to Sixth Street would be moved from 2016-17 to 2018;

• City funding to rebuild Queens Road in West Lawrence would be moved from 2017 to 2019;

• Reconstruction of portions of East 23rd Street would be moved from 2018-19 to 2019-20

• Reconstruction of Kasold from Clinton Parkway to the entrance of Hy-Vee would be moved from 2018 to 2020.

• Plans to find space to combine the city’s building inspections department and the planning office into a central “one-stop shop” location would be delayed until at least 2021.

One project that doesn’t get delayed is plans to rebuild portions of Ninth Street as part of a program to create an arts corridor in East Lawrence. Corliss said the project could use infrastructure sales tax money approved by voters in 2008, but that will require scrapping plans to rebuild Wakarusa Drive from Research Parkway to Clinton Parkway.

The other big change that would be required in the city’s budget is that money that was to be set aside for Parks and Recreation maintenance projects and some operating funds would be shifted to the police headquarters project. Corliss has said the department would have enough money to do routine maintenance of its facilities, but he is warning that more significant maintenance projects wouldn’t have an identified funding source. He also told commissioners it would severely hamper the city’s ability to add new parks for the next 20 years.

“Very little funding would be available for any significant capital improvement projects for Parks and Recreation for the 20-year term of the debt,” the memo states. “This would include both new park additions, new recreation facilities, and major maintenance of existing facilities.”

City staff members released the memo late Monday. City commissioners are scheduled to discuss it at their meeting this evening. Corliss has said there are other scenarios that would include other projects that could be delayed, but there are “a number of consequences that much be analyzed with each option.”