Barrington taxpayers — nearly 1,700 of them — voted to reduce the budget by $253,048.56 last week. 

It could have been more. Voters faced nearly $419,000 in proposed budget decreases on the Barrington’s first-ever financial town referendum.

Barrington resident Janine Wolf proposed most of the amendments, and she was happy that they drew attention to the budget. In a message to the Barrington Times, Wolf wrote that she hopes the situation brings increased scrutiny to the budget process, “and that the scrutiny persists.”

“Without the volume of amendments, and considering there was, absurdly, only an ‘approve’ option for the overall budget, I suspect there would have been far less traffic at Town Hall on FTR day, and far less attention drawn to the problem of the ever-compounding, expanding budget,” Wolf wrote. 

“And although it appears that many marched out to obey their party's command to ‘defeat those bad amendments,’ the controversy seems to have encouraged a fair number of people to think about the proposed increases with a more critical eye.”

The town’s total budget — municipal, school, and debt service — was set to increase by 8.43% before voters approved 25 of the 36 proposed amendments. The increase dropped to 8.15% following the FTR. 

The majority of the total budget is focused on the school department: about $71.1 million of the $106.5 million total town budget. Another $24.9 million goes to the municipal government, and $10.6 million is for debt. All of the approved amendments impacted the municipal budget; the total municipal budget was proposed to increase by 4.02% but approved amendments shifted the increase to 2.98%

Barrington Town Manager Phil Hervey shared information on Friday showing that the tax rate was increasing by about $1 (per $1,000 of assessed property value) from $15.34 to $16.33. The approved amendments reduced the rate by five cents. 

Taxes turn into donations

Wolf hoped the proposed amendments highlighted what she called “the inappropriate use of mandatory tax dollars to fund private charities chosen by the town.”

Wolf proposed five amendments reducing the amount of money earmarked for area charities. Voters approved two of the five: $200 less for the Easter Rhode Island Conservation District, and $500 less for the Barrington Preservation Society. Amendments targeting Flower Power, The Samaritans, and the Barrington Land Conservation Trust failed. 

“Many residents apparently preferred to preserve donations to charities they personally support,” Wolf wrote. “That is their right privately—but taxpayers should not be compelled to fund the charitable preferences of government officials or voting majorities.

“The amounts involved were small, but the principle is not. Charity is supposed to be voluntary. Taxation is not.”

Wolf believes the charitable line items — they are called “Agency Support”— are a clear example of a budget culture that has “lost all sense of restraint: even amid continual spending growth and million-dollar surpluses, the Town still sees no boundary between essential government functions and discretionary charitable giving.”

Wolf wrote: “It may be a small item in the budget, but it speaks volumes about the mindset behind the budget.”

New budget process

This year marked the town’s first-ever financial town referendum. For more than 200 years, Barrington relied on financial town meetings to finalize its budget. 

The FTR was intended to increase participation, which it did on May 27, voting day: Most FTMs drew a few hundred people, with participation increasing for contentious budgets and less otherwise. This year’s FTR drew 1,669 registered voters. 

However, Wolf believes the new FTR process limited taxpayers’ options when proposing changes to the budget.

“The revised budget process forced amendment supporters to target specific line items, even though funds may ultimately be reallocated after the final budget amount is determined,” she wrote. “That procedural reality was largely ignored in favor of theatrical warnings and exaggerated claims about catastrophic impacts to essential services.

“Eventually, enough voters will understand how the process actually works. When that happens, sensible fiscal restraint will no longer be so easily undermined by fear-based messaging and political theatrics.”

Taxpayers sent a message with their votes, as the majority of amendments targeting municipal government administration passed, some by wide margins. Barrington taxpayers also approved all seven amendments aimed at the Barrington Planning, Building and Resiliency Department, eliminating $72,205. 

But when it came to police, fire and public works amendments, voters rejected most of the proposed reductions. Two of the three first department budget amendments and three of the four DPW budget amendments were voted down by residents. Taxpayers also defeated the lone police department amendment. 

The town’s budget saw a significant increase in total debt — much of that is tied to the $250 million school construction project bonds. Barrington is renovating and expanding four of the six public schools: Sowams, Nayatt, Primrose Hill, and Barrington High School. The $10.6 million in debt in the budget is a 64.71% increase over the previous year. 

More transparency 

Wolf is calling for greater transparency in the town’s financial systems.

“The only way we can know how much money is needed is to be able to see what is actually spent, what it’s being spent on, and what’s left over at the end of the year,” she wrote. “At this point, we only see reports that are outdated by the time they are published.”

Wolf also cited the May 4 Barrington Town Council meeting, where the town’s audit results were discussed. 

“It (the fiscal year) ended with a $1.5 million municipal surplus,” Wolf wrote. “Was that money deducted from the next year's Tax Levy? I never saw such an offset; we should have.   

“There is no excuse for this lack of transparency- it would not take cutting-edge technology to open this up to public oversight.”