Does the Tiverton Town Council have the right to determine how casino revenue funds will be spent, or should that decision be left up to the voters? The question was at the center of a vigorous debate among council members at a meeting earlier this month, as they considered how the funds would be allocated for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

Revenues from the Twin River Tiverton Casino Hotel have been accumulating in a dedicated town account per a town ordinance set to expire on June 30. In the past year, those who object to the ordinance – including some council members – have said gaming revenues belong in the general fund and voters should have the ultimate say in deciding whether they are used to lower taxes or be directed elsewhere.

Late last year, the council approved the allocation of $2 million in casino revenue to the school district for capital expenses, to include renovations of middle and high school bathrooms and replacement of four light poles at the high school. They also approved an allocation of $1.1 million for a variety of municipal capital projects.

The discussion at Monday’s meeting focused on proposed allocations of revenue for the next fiscal year. Next year, 40 percent of revenues would to be transferred to a restricted acute (emergency) capital projects account, 40 percent to a restricted capital projects account, and 20 percent to the restricted general fund until that fund reaches 10 percent of the town’s current operating budget.

Councilor Donna Cook said the council’s action is contrary to the stipulation in the town charter that states that any expenditures over $500,000 must go before the voters for approval.

“I’ve yet to get a legal opinion from [Town Solicitor] Mike Marcello as to why the revenue is disbursed and voted on and spent by the town council as they see fit – without any input from the public,” Cook said.

In response, council president Denise deMedeiros said the solicitor has issued a legal opinion stating that casino revenue is different than that brought in by taxation.

“I think he is wrong,” Cook responded. “My complaint is you are keeping people out of it. They need to vote on anything over $500,000. They make the choice on whether they want to spend it on the items you put forward to them, or maybe you can give them choices, but to just take them out of the process, that seems very wrong to me and I feel it’s a charter violation.”

“We are reducing taxes, do you realize that?” deMedeiros  asked rhetorically.

“By giving the school department $2 million to replace all the bathrooms that have been on their needs list — we are not asking people to fund this; we are not taxing them ... we are spending money that the casino has given to us.”

Councilor Jay Edwards echoed her sentiment.

“This is tax relief,” he said. “You are using the dollars for projects we need that would normally be funded by tax revenues. I don’t understand the confusion or resistance to this idea.”

Councilor Michael Burk said the council is thinking ahead and being prudent in the allocation of the funds to not only help address capital needs, but to protect the town from major emergencies.

Councilor Deb Janick said she concurred with the view that the expenditures represent a reduction in taxes.

“We are definitely decreasing taxes by doing this,” she said. “This is paying for items without using taxpayer money and it’s getting us what we need…those items we had to kick down the road for so many years because we just couldn’t afford it.”

School Committee Chairperson Jerome Larkin, who said he was speaking as a community member, not a district representative, said multiple public hearings have been held throughout the process, and the council has been transparent in all of its actions relating to the casino funds.

“If there is any doubt relating to the capacity for citizens or voters to weigh in, that really is just not true,” he said.  “Many people have weighed in and have had multiple opportunities to do so.”

In expressing support for Cook’s point of view, Councilor Joseph Perry said he too believes that if the town is spending more than $500,000 on capital items, “the people should have the right — not seven people — to decide where the casino money goes.”

Councilor Bill Vieira said he has historically supported the premise that the voters need to be heard on how the casino funds are to be spent, but to date he has heard almost nothing from the public on the issue; additionally, he said the budget committee appears to support the council’s approach. He said he would like to see a portion of the casino revenue allocated to debt reduction.

The council will revisit the ordinance at its next meeting, and a public hearing will be scheduled prior to a final vote.

In a related matter, the council agreed to support the Tiverton School Committee’s five-year capital plan in connection with an application to the Rhode Island Department of Education for reimbursement from the state of a portion of capital expenses related to the bathroom and light pole expenditures. Five affirmative votes were cast, with Cook opposed, and one Perry abstaining.