North Smithfield Town Council - June 23, 2025
Special Meeting — June 23, 2025
Meeting overview
Agenda at a glance
| Agenda item | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025–26 Budget — Public Hearing | Linda Thibault presented senior services program overview. Mike Clifford raised procurement and grant writer concerns. Budget discussion exposed unreconciled financials — numbers presented as of May 31 were actually only through April 30. | Continued to June 24 |
| FY2025–26 Budget — Deliberation & Vote | Tabled without discussion. Finance reconciliation gap made meaningful deliberation impossible. | Tabled to June 24 |
| FY2025–26 Budget — Enterprise Funds | Tabled without discussion. Enterprise fund presenter was sent home early before the reconciliation issue surfaced. | Tabled to June 24 |
Key issues and discussion
Senior Services — Linda Thibault Presentation
Thibault, chair of the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee and co-chair of the Building Committee, appeared to address community concern that senior services would be disrupted as the town transitioned away from Aging Well (Woonsocket) to a town-run program. Her core message: no interruption of services.
She walked through the full schedule of classes running at Scouters Hall (Zumba Gold, yoga, weight training, line dancing, balance, and more), explained that the congregate meal program is federally funded through the Older Americans Act and does not depend on the town’s relationship with Aging Well, and described her ongoing work to bring meals directly to Scouters Hall on Mondays and Thursdays.
Key service continuity points: the $3/donation congregate meal is open to any resident over 60 regardless of the Aging Well relationship; farmers market vouchers (briefly lost) were restored after intervention with the Office of Healthy Aging; a Medicare/insurance information specialist position is being filled by a volunteer; and a My Senior Center digital tracking program had been purchased to support grant reporting. The $45,000 budget line covers ten classes and 11 hours per week of coordination time; additional classes are covered through grants and sponsors.
Senior Services Procurement Challenge
Mike Clifford (489 Black Plain Rd) raised substantive objections to how the senior services program was being established. His challenge was procedural, not directed at the services themselves.
His core argument: the council authorized a contract with what appeared to be an LLC (or possibly a nonprofit — the structure had changed) without any competitive bidding process, without a written legal opinion from the town solicitor confirming this was permissible, and without a clear liability framework if a participant was injured. He requested a written opinion from the solicitor on three points: whether the town can legally contract without competitive bidding, whether liability exposure exists, and whether payroll tax obligations were properly addressed.
He also challenged the $45,000 budget line (an $1,800 item had grown to $8,000 without clear documentation) and the grant writer authorization ($74,000 without comparative market research; Smithfield pays $57,600/year for comparable services).
The Finance Reconciliation Crisis
The central event of the meeting was the discovery that the budget document’s financial columns were materially inaccurate. Public commenter Mike Davis (151 Douglas Pike) identified that the budget spreadsheet showed column headers dated May 31 but figures actually as of April 30. Net change columns showed nonsensical figures, including what appeared to be a $1.5 million tax revenue increase that didn’t match anything.
Finance staff explained the spreadsheet had formula errors pulling from the wrong prior-year column. But the deeper problem: as of June 23, with less than one week left in the fiscal year, the town’s books were not reconciled through May. The council was being asked to adopt a FY2026 budget while comparing against FY2025 actuals incomplete by at least two months.
Punchak raised the sharpest concern: the FY2025 adopted budget was $53 million, but actuals showed only $41 million spent as of April 30 — a theoretical $12 million gap. After accounting for known missing entries (school appropriations, debt service, payroll), the real number was closer to $50 million, leaving about a $3 million gap from budget. A $55.5M FY2026 budget would represent a $4–5 million jump over recent actuals.
DeCristofaro pressed the underlying principle: without current actuals, the council cannot meaningfully evaluate whether individual budget line increases are justified. Finance staff acknowledged they had not historically provided actuals through May for budget adoption, and said reconciliation could be completed by the next day. The budget was tabled to June 24.
School Budget — Attempted Partial Action
A suggestion was made to approve the school budget that evening since the administrator’s and budget committee’s figures were identical, meaning there was no dispute. The solicitor confirmed this could be done contingent on ratification the next day. However, Alves decided to keep everything together and defer the school budget to June 24 along with the rest.
Public comments
| Speaker | Summary |
|---|---|
| Linda Thibault 83 St. Paul St. |
Senior Citizen Advisory Committee chair. Presented full overview of senior services program at Scouters Hall. Addressed continuity of congregate meals (federally funded, not dependent on Aging Well relationship), farmers market vouchers, Medicare information specialist, and My Senior Center tracking software. Confirmed no interruption of services during transition. |
| Mike Clifford 489 Black Plain Rd. |
Challenged procurement process for senior services contract (no competitive bidding, no written legal opinion, unclear liability framework). Challenged grant writer authorization ($74K without comparative market research). Predicted police overtime would be underfunded again. Raised formula errors in budget spreadsheet. Called for solicitor’s written legal opinion on senior services contracting. |
| Mike Davis 151 Douglas Pike |
Identified specific spreadsheet formula errors: budget columns labeled as prior-year comparisons showed incorrect net change figures. Columns dated May 31 actually reflected April 30 data. Requested the spreadsheet be corrected and reprinted before the council votes. |