NORTH SMITHFIELD – The lengthy annual process of line by line fiscal planning for the year ahead got off to a rocky start on Monday after members of the Town Council and Budget Committee questioned discrepancies and the lack of up to date data in documents presented by the Finance Department.
The questions began when Budget Committee member Mike Davis pointed out that the budget presented on a big screen for those in attendance showed inaccurate percentage changes on line items.
“Those numbers are not right,” said Davis. “All the cells are not lined up.”
“He’s absolutely right,” said Budget Committee Chairman Douglas Osier. “Wherever there’s a variance it should be explained where it came from.”
Finance Director Antony St. Onge initially held his ground.
“Those will be explained as we go through the budget,” St. Onge said of the discrepancies.
Davis pointed out that according to the data shown, taxes were set to go up by $1.5 million.
“That’s not even the same thing we’re looking at,” noted Councilor David Punchak of separate documents that had been presented to the council for the meeting on Monday, June 23.
“I don’t know why they would drastically differ,” said Osier. “I know when we’ve been working with the sheet there’s been formula errors. I know last year there were formula errors. I would just double check to make sure your numbers are accurate.”
Contacted after the meeting, Osier explained the extent of those “formula errors,” noting that this year, until April, Town Hall staff believed that the town administrator’s proposed budget was bumping against the state-mandated 4 percent cap on levy increases. St. Onge’s calculation turned out to be off – in the town’s favor – by $700,000.
“We caught the error,” said Osier. “We thought it was kind of a big deal. There were a lot of glaring issues this year.”
On Monday, St. Onge would eventually realize the formula in the column shown on the screen was also off – and using data from 2024.
And the problems continued as Council President Kimberly Alves questioned why the revenue data shown on the board’s handouts was dated April 30, but expenses used the date of May 31. Alves was told that both sheets were actually only accurate as of the earlier date at the end of April.
“They hadn’t been fully reconciled yet,” said St. Onge of the numbers from May.
Councilor Rebecca DeCristofaro questioned why line items were populated with figures for the Town Council before deliberations began – and was told it was for ease of entering updates during the budget proceedings.
“I would prefer not looking at those numbers this evening and focusing on what we’ve been presented,” DeCristofaro said.
Alves questioned why the department hadn’t reconciled the available figures.
“What we’re presenting says 5/31 but now you”re telling me it’s 4/30,” said Alves. “You kept saying you’re going to be done… you’re going to be done in a few weeks – and now we’re at budget time and the date’s not even accurate. I just have doubts.”
“It’s not done for the budget but it’s being done for the fiscal year,” St. Onge said of the reconciliation.
A polite but firm budget Chairman Osier objected to the dismissal.
“We were told that we weren’t fully reconciled but that by the time the budget was presented we would be reconciled,” he said of the department data. “I know in the past I’ve spoken about reconciliations. I think it’s a huge risk to the town that we’re not being reconciled.”
Punchak noted that Monday’s documents showed the town had more than $12 million in unspent monies from the previous year.
“It seems like there could be a huge discrepancy there,” Punchak said. “Have we approved $12 million worth of bills in the past two months? I don’t think so.”
“There’s a big discrepancy,” agreed Alves. “We have no idea if we saved money in any line items.”
Asst. Finance Director Jerrianne Nunes explained that the final months of the fiscal year would include a large payment for debt service, $1 million in payroll and two months of school expenses.
“It’s a lot closer than this report as of April looks,” she said. “Right now, you have ten months out of 12. As of tomorrow you could have 11 months out of 12.”
Nunes questioned why councilors wanted the data to move forward.
“We’ve never provided that much data in the past,” she said. “I remember us doing three quarters – and we’ve recently been improving it. I honestly don’t ever remember giving through May 31 on these reports. We have a lot of missing invoices that will trickle in over the next two months.”
“I personally am confused,” added Nunes. “We’ve never provided projected information for the budget adoption before.”
“We have in the past,” replied Alves.
A review of previous years’ budget documents shows that the council president was correct, and that budget data was provided through May 31 until 2021, when less up-to-date information seems to have become the norm in North Smithfield.
“We’re trying to improve with getting more and more up to date actuals,” said St. Onge, noting the numbers were even further behind when he first began leading the department in 2023.
“I’m not comfortable doing a budget for the town when we don’t have actual numbers,” said Alves.
With a second budget meeting planned for the following night, councilors questioned if they should delay proceedings to get up to date figures through May 31. Punchak suggested the new documents should also include a list of anticipated commitments.
“Personally, I would like to be closer,” he said of the numbers.
“We need to understand what’s informing the big ticket items,” agreed DeCristofaro. “I think whenever we’re discussing a budget, we have to have as close to actual as possible.”
“It’s really just a matter of a day they need to tie the numbers down,” said Town Administrator Scott Gibbs, noting that with time still remaining in the current fiscal year, the council will always be missing a month when they take up the budget in June.
Councilor John Beauregard suggested that with no increase planned for the School Department, councilors could complete that portion of deliberations without updated figures.
“There are people here tonight,” said Beauregard. “Can we get them so they don’t have to come back tomorrow?”
The idea ultimately did not gain traction.
“We should do the whole budget tomorrow,” Alves said.
Davis again pointed to the error on the public display.
“I’m hoping we do postpone,” he said. “I’m just hoping we all can be looking at the same numbers. For it to get through onto the screen is kind of a red flag for me.”
Osier agreed.
“Candidly, if this came up before the Budget Committee we would ask for the sheet to be updated and redone before we did anything,” he said. “It’s clear that there’s still areas to investigate. It should be investigated before the budget is finalized.”
After more than an hour of debate the council took no action on Monday, ultimately tabling budget deliberations to the following night.
Editor’s note: Councilors met and made significant progress on the budget Tuesday evening, but the process was incomplete as of this publishing, with another meeting planned for Thursday, May 26. A follow up article will cover the actual figures planned for the coming fiscal year.
