Barnstable County finance panel trims IT initiatives, raises registry revenue estimate and approves IT-budget review by communications subcommittee

Barnstable County’s standing finance committee met March 10 to review the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget, hearing administration explanations for several cuts and revenue adjustments and voting to have the communications subcommittee review the county’s IT budget and report back.

County Administrator Dutton told the committee the only substantive changes to the draft budget were expense reductions in IT and a deferred finance program, plus an upward adjustment to registry-of-deeds revenue projections. “The budget in front of you is one that we've been talking about on and off for several months now,” Dutton said, adding the IT cuts were made because staff expect to seek state grant funding or, if that fails, a supplemental request later in the year.

The committee heard specifics from Finance Director Carol Kapolev, who said the updated registry projection and the expense reductions allowed staff to “completely remove any reliance on revenue stabilization.” Kapolev also confirmed that there are no newly funded positions in the regular operating budget for FY26 aside from lab positions addressed in a separate ordinance; one lab post is new, and two positions currently funded through ARPA would transfer to the operating budget if approved.

Committee members asked for detail and raised broader fiscal concerns. Delegate Wyman Colombo asked whether the registry revenue increase eliminates the need to draw $1.3 million from the stabilization fund; Kapolev said the updated revenue and the cuts make a draw unnecessary. Delegate Preisel and others pressed for clearer, itemized numbers; the finance director provided figures during the meeting, saying one-time new expenses in the FY26 proposed budget total $153,472 and that the “new and recurring” line items total approximately $6,091,098.05. Later in the meeting staff clarified two IT items removed from the budget: a regional IT-services planning study budgeted at $111,000 and a cybersecurity training initiative budgeted at $107,000.

Several delegates emphasized long-term fiscal risk from growing personnel and benefit costs and from dependence on grants. Committee members noted that federal and state grants support many county programs and asked staff to supply a spreadsheet identifying grant-funded positions and any ongoing obligations if those grants end. Finance staff explained that a large part of the county’s federal-grant total includes ARPA funds and that some departments assume they will continue to receive grant funding rather than budgeting those positions within the operating budget.

On a procedural motion, Delegate Frizzell moved — and Delegate Warner seconded — to have the communications subcommittee review the IT budget and report back to the finance committee. The committee approved the motion in a roll call vote with all members present voting yes.

The committee closed the session after the roll call and discussion of next steps; members asked staff to circulate the grant data and to return with departmental budget details as the process continues.

Votes at a glance: The finance committee voted 5–0 to approve a motion to have the communications subcommittee review the county IT budget and report back to the finance committee (mover: Delegate Frizzell; second: Delegate Warner).