Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond council trims spending, sends revised FY2526 budget to second referendum
Summary
After the June 3 budget question failed, the Richmond Town Council voted to remove and reallocate specific line items — including a $60,000 grant-writer position and partial merit pay increases — and approved a revised budget to go back to voters with the tax rate unchanged.
The Richmond Town Council voted on multiple budget changes on June 17 and approved sending a revised fiscal year 2526 budget to a second referendum while keeping the town—s tax rate unchanged.
The council opened an extended discussion after the June 3 referendum failed. Council members debated two broad options: revise the budget to align with last year—s expenditures or send a revised proposal back to voters. The council ultimately pursued a mix of reductions and reallocations intended to lower net new spending while preserving priority items.
Why this matters: The revisions aim to close the gap between the proposed FY2526 spending and the previous year without increasing the mill rate. Council members and residents framed the debate around two competing priorities: retaining and compensating town staff and making one-time investments in roads, equipment and parks.
Key changes the council approved included removing a $60,000 grant-writer position from the FY2526 budget, reducing proposed merit-based salary adjustments roughly in half (a $54,000 reduction), and cutting $130,000 from the DPW equipment SIP (capital equipment plan). A separate proposed $150,000 cut from the repaving SIP failed for lack of a second. Councilors later approved reallocation of a $20,000 parks line into the salary adjustments, leaving the final package roughly balanced to the revisions the council adopted that night.
Councilors emphasized the town—s fund balance and the tradeoffs involved. The administrator explained that Richmond—s fund balance had been reported at about 17.7% and that the town policy target range is 15% to 20%; the auditor—s recommended target cited in the discussion was about 16.6%. Council members who favored referendum argued that those reserves made a second question reasonable because the package preserved critical investments without raising the mill rate. Council members who opposed a second referendum urged deeper cuts to avoid asking voters again.
Public comment was extensive and split. Dozens of residents spoke in person and online. Supporters of the council—s original proposal urged protecting staff pay and retaining experienced town employees; others argued the referendum result should be respected and urged larger cuts, citing the use of fund balance to pay for additional investments.
Formal actions and votes recorded at the meeting (selected): - Motion to remove the $60,000 grant-writer position from the FY2526 budget: approved by roll call. - Motion to reduce the proposed merit-based salary adjustments by half (a $54,000 reduction): approved by roll call. - Motion to remove $130,000 from the DPW equipment SIP: approved by roll call. - Motion to remove $150,000 from the repaving SIP: no second, not considered. - Motion to reallocate $20,000 from a parks placeholder back into salaries: approved by roll call as an amendment to the package. - Motion to approve the budget as amended and submit it to a second referendum (tax rate unchanged): approved by roll call.
The council also met in executive session earlier in the evening under R.I. Gen. Laws —342-46-5 (pending litigation) and later voted to seal the minutes; the meeting record notes no votes were taken while in executive session.
Next steps: With the council—s vote, the town will place the revised FY2526 question before voters. Council members discussed logistics and the ballot language; the town clerk noted ballots are dated and some procedural steps will be required to put the updated question before voters. Councilors suggested finalizing ballot wording and scheduling at the next meeting to avoid rushed preparation and to maximize public notice.
The discussion highlighted persistent fault lines: several councilors and many residents urged protecting staff pay to retain institutional knowledge, while others urged larger cuts or using the fund balance more conservatively. The council—s package stopped short of the larger $465,276 reduction figure some members proposed as the amount that would bring spending back to last year—s level without a referendum.
Public comment and council discussion are available in the meeting record; councilors said they expect continued public engagement before the referendum date is set.
