Westerly council trims school capital, sets aside Bradford recreation funds amid debate over $1.4M school increase

Westerly’s town council moved Thursday to reduce a proposed school capital appropriation and to reserve $1.195 million for the Bradford Recreation site, after more than an hour of public comment and debate over the town’s fund balance, road maintenance and a $1.4 million proposed increase for school operating costs.

The council’s votes follow public comments from residents and school employees urging caution about dipping into the town’s fund balance for ongoing operating costs and urging support for teachers’ compensation. The council cut a school capital line, considered but did not approve moving $1.5 million into sewer work, and approved a restricted reserve for Bradford Recreation that officials said will let the town seek grants and proceed with early-phase work.

The discussion centered on how to balance recurring operating costs for the schools against one-time capital needs such as road reclamation and the Bradford Recreation master plan, and how much of Westerly’s fund balance should be available for one‑time versus recurring use.

Residents and school staff framed the choices for council members. John Vania, a resident who spoke during the public-comment period, raised the town’s fund balance and road program, noting the town “has a hundred roads” and detailing the long-term resurfacing cycle that engineers had described to the council. He urged the council to increase annual road funding to avoid repeated bond borrowing.

Kristen Federico, a first-grade teacher at State Street School and president of the Westerly Teachers Union, told the council the finance board had carefully recommended the operating increase and that teachers are negotiating a new contract with the school committee. “Westerly teachers are currently negotiating a new contract with the school committee,” she said, adding that over the past eight years local teacher salaries had risen by only about 8 percent in total.

Councilors debated whether the $1.4 million proposed increase for school operating costs should be treated as an ongoing floor for future budgets (which would raise next year’s baseline) or whether the council should instead meet some requests through one-time capital or restricted funds. Several councilors and public speakers stressed that fund balance is best used for one-time capital projects and that relying on a one-time surplus to cover recurring operating costs could create a structural deficit.

On specific budget actions, the council: - Approved a motion to move the public-comment period to the start of the workshop so residents could speak before line‑by‑line budget discussion. (Motion moved by Dylan; second not specified; passed.) - Voted to reduce the School Capital Improvement line by $1,540,000 (motion and precise mover not specified in the record; the council recorded a 5–2 result for that reduction). The council discussed that the school’s total capital request for the year was roughly $2.883 million and that removing the $1.054 million (one of the referenced amounts discussed during debate) would remove more than half of that capital request. - Considered a motion to transfer $1.5 million (the amount cut from school capital) toward the sewer treatment/upgrade project; the motion failed on a roll call after debate about whether the amount would meaningfully move the larger project forward. - Approved reserving $1,195,000 for the Bradford Recreation project (described as adding to an existing restricted balance to reach an estimated $1.74 million for an early phase). The council recorded the motion and a subsequent vote that carried. Council members said reserving the amount shows the town’s commitment and would make the town more competitive for grants; others urged caution and recommended waiting for final engineering and permitting steps before spending more. - Approved modest additions: a $1,000 allocation for an Honor Flight line item and an increase in recreation-programming funding (the council amended the recreation programming line toward $50,000 from its prior level), both actions intended to support town programs.

Councilors also spent substantial time on capital priorities. Residents and some councilors argued for increasing the annual operating line for roads to reduce reliance on bonds; others said the town faces multiyear bonded projects this fiscal year and must complete them. Council members described an anticipated $7 million in bonding for roads this year and differing views on whether to reallocate existing surpluses.

On Bradford Recreation, councilors and staff described multiple phased cost estimates from consultant materials, with options ranging from a minimally scoped Phase 1 to more-complete builds that include restrooms and multiuse courts. Supporters said setting aside the $1.195 million would allow the town to move to engineering and permitting and better position Westerly for matching grants; skeptics called for clearer timelines and staged spending so the town does not commit the entire amount before final design and permitting are complete.

Council members emphasized procedural limits. Several speakers reminded the council that fund balances are often regarded as one-time revenue by rating agencies and bond underwriters, and that relying on them for recurring operating costs can hurt the town’s long-term fiscal health.

The council recessed at the end of the workshop after confirming the amended budget moves the town’s current tax‑levy increase to roughly 1.91 percent, producing an estimated mill rate near 7.11 (figures presented by staff during the workshop). Officials said they would finish formal budget votes at the required public hearing and make final adjustments before adoption.

“I do appreciate, like I said, your information,” finance-board member Paula Roulette told the council and the public during comments on fund-balance use. “Fund balance is looked at as a one-time revenue. You may not have it the next year.”

Councilors said they expect to continue the conversation at the public hearing and final budget vote, and several asked staff for clearer breakdowns of committed grant matches and restricted balances before final approval.

The workshop record shows multiple formal motions and votes on the items summarized above; minutes and the finance board’s recommendation document are listed as part of the budget file for more detailed line‑by‑line numbers.

Ending: The council left the Bradford project and certain capital choices partly reserved and partly deferred, asking staff to bring final engineering and permit updates and reminding the public that budget adoption will follow required public hearings.