Smithfield budget board balances FY27 recommendation after $873,060 in cuts, approves department budgets

The Smithfield Budget and Financial Review Board on May 20 agreed on a balanced fiscal 2027 budget recommendation after restoring missed revenue and trimming $873,060 from department operating lines, preventing a planned $1,405,827 draw on the general fund.

Chair opened the meeting saying the finance office’s post-review showed the unintended draw: “It was essentially going to draw down the general fund by $1,400,000 that was not the intent of the board,” and convened members to re‑review revenue and department appropriations to equalize the budget.

Why it matters: the board’s adjustments keep the town at or below the 4 percent levy cap while protecting the general fund. Members repeatedly flagged the town’s bond rating and the need for clearer line-item descriptions; the board directed staff to include oversight recommendations for the town council.

What changed: the board and staff corrected revenue recognition errors — most notably restoring Bryant University contractual receipts to the top-line revenue — and added back other receipts that reduced the prior deficit. Even with those corrections, members calculated the need to trim $807,242 from departmental spending; the board’s line-by-line review produced $873,060 in reductions, leaving a modest $65,818 buffer rather than drawing reserves.

Key program and line-item decisions included: - Restoring contractual revenue for Bryant University and adding $234,000 in rescue-billing revenue to the top-line forecast, yielding an anticipated total revenue of $100,228,224. - Removing a $50,000 town‑aided programs discretionary line; the board said future grants to outside organizations must come to the town council as separate agenda items. - Reclassifying certain police computer purchases and proposing a split funding approach (approximately $30,000 from levy and $30,000 from impact/specialty funds) to avoid taxing core operations. - Cutting conference/dues lines across multiple departments (town clerk, planning, treasurer/tax collector, tax assessor, buildings, human services) and reducing several miscellaneous/contingency accounts, including IT maintenance and miscellaneous accounts. - Reducing two previously approved probationary firefighter positions and increasing the fire department overtime line by $55,000 (to a $600,000 overtime budget) to offset coverage impacts. - Trimming two capital entries (Camp Sheppard and a lawsuit repayment) from $75,000 each to $5,000 each; members clarified these are journal/internal-repayment entries rather than new external obligations. - Adjusting school capital funding: the board lowered a proposed school capital allocation from $1.2 million to $775,000 in initial discussion, then agreed in-session to a $800,000 figure while debating timing of housing‑aid and BOIL reimbursements that partially affect school capital resources.

On transportation, the school representative said the town and districts anticipate a $188,000 reduction in transportation costs tied to a new contract and operational changes (RFP/bidding results), but members noted union and contract timing could affect the exact savings.

Votes and process: after discussion the board moved department-by-department to adopt FY27 funding recommendations. Chair led successive motions and voice votes; most motions passed by voice vote (Aye), with one recorded opposition on the fire department approval. The board concluded it would present a recommendation to the town council and leave a small buffer to prevent rounding-driven draws on reserves.

Next steps: the finance office will consolidate the board’s edits; a joint workshop with the town council is scheduled for June 9 and the town council vote on the budget is set for June 16.

Quotes and perspectives “Because we can do a 4% increase in the levy, doesn't mean it's a target or a goal. It's just a cap,” Chair said while explaining the board’s approach to levies and reserves. The school representative described the transportation savings as “The 188 is the number that we are currently working on,” but acknowledged uncertainty tied to contract and union processes. A public commenter praised the board’s work: “…to give kudos to all you people who really take the time … and really try to hold the line to do the right thing for this beautiful town.”

What the board did not decide: the board deferred any final reallocation decisions that would require town council action (for example, repurposing capital projects to further bolster school capital). Members emphasized they were making recommendations and that the council retains discretion on funding sources and final allocations.

The board’s recommendation, supporting material and formal vote records will be transmitted to the town council ahead of the June 9 workshop and the June 16 council vote.