Steven Bloom provided this response, with attached spread sheets:
I appreciate all of the comments and criticisms regarding my proposal and would like to specifically address some of the comments. I’d like to reiterate them for clarity:
1. It generally seems as if he targeted the highest-paid city staffers and suggested their elimination, but took no such position toward the school department. Without addressing the costs of the upper administration in the school department, it looks like the city will take the brunt of the cuts. Why is he allowing the school board to get away with their continued bait-and-switch tactics?
2. Cutting maintenance and building maintenance laborers is, to me, not the answer. Again, consideration of the school department’s spending in these areas is missing. A more prudent approach would be to bring school building maintenance under the city’s purview and eliminate most of the school building staff positions. I would argue that it would save far more than 3 full time salaries.
3. Mr. Bloom also counts on the sale of the old police station ($2 million) to reduce debt service — why didn’t he apply this as revenue that, by the way, would take the place of half the proposed tax increase? The debt service increase in the FY09 proposed budget is $500,000 — not $2 million. There’s no pressing need to earmark more than we’re scheduled to pay, in other words.
4. I don’t see a once-a-month furlough happening, particularly since the city is still operating under existing contracts.
5. I agree with Oblomov regarding the proposed library and inspection cuts. You can’t just lop off a couple of positions without considering the potential harm to services.
My responses are as follows:
1. The focus of my budget is cutting expenses on both the City and School sides. To avoid / minimize a tax increase in this and in future years, we must get spending under control. Although the Mayor claims to have cut spending, the numbers don’t add up. In fact, the Mayor has not cut costs, and only achieved a minor spending reduction of $500K, by defunding the schools another $1.0 million. (Please see the attached schedule #1 for a reconciliation of the Mayor’s spending cuts.)
On the other hand, I have proposed the following: cutting staffing ($1074K), leaving positions unfilled ($360K), reducing general expenses ($212K) and instituting a City furlough ($540K) in order to save approximately $2.2 million. In identifying potential personnel cuts, I tried to target departments that have payroll growth that has exceeded the rate of inflation, indicating personnel additions, not wage increases. Attached is a schedule #2 of the City’s departmental payroll (excluding taxes and benefits); I’ve highlighted the high growth departments.
I’ve recommended cuts from these high-growth departments or ones for which services are lagging based upon discussions I’ve had with others. Both high and low paying positions have been targeted with annual salaries ranging from as much as $90K to as low as $38K.
The specifics are laid out in the budget proposal. This being said, I am not committed to these cuts specifically, but rather to the overall goal to reduce payroll by about $1.5 million. With these cuts and the furlough, the year on year increase for City services since 2006-2007 can be limited to 1%; otherwise it will remain at 2.5%. If city services are better serviced by cutting personnel in another department, I’m all for it, as long as we can achieve $1.5 million in city-side personnel cuts / unfilled positions. In short, I believe that we have a choice to make: do we want higher taxes with existing services, or do we want lower taxes with equivalent or lower services. I am willing to try the latter; we can always bring people back.
2. Regarding cuts to the School, it does APPEAR that the majority of the cuts are falling on the city, since I’ve proposed an increase in the allocation to the School District. Upon further analysis, however, the School District is also sharing in the pain. According to my budget, the city cuts of $2.2 million represent 2.9% of the City’s budget per my alternate proposal (see the attached spread sheet #3 for a reconciliation), excluding the School District, Debt Service, and Unfunded Pension liabilities, while the school district will sustain personnel cuts of almost $5.2 million representing about 3.9% of the School District’s final alternate budget.
Although the School Committee cut approximately $8.0 million from the School Districts proposed budget, approximately half of these represented the elimination of new spending or cost avoidance by bring special education tuitions in house. Most of the personnel cuts are in the School District’s adopted budget and do not show up as a spending cuts in the alternate budget, because they’re already there.
3. Regarding consolidation of services between the city and the Schools, such as building maintenance, I agree. If we can save more, it will only result in lower taxes now and in the future.
4. Regarding the Sale of the Police, it is my understanding that all capital assets sales must be applied against debt service. That being said, it would appear that the comments above are double counting the sale. If the sale was included in revenue and taxes lowered by the same amount, debt service would be $2 million higher, necessitating another $2 million in cuts to balance the reduction in tax revenue. I am not keen on including capital sales in the operating budget. However, it is my understanding that the law requires it and furthermore it puts pressure on the City to get the building sold.
5. Regarding a furlough, it is my understanding that the Mayor already has the authority to institute a furlough under the existing contracts.
6. The School Department is not as transparent as the City Budget, actual staffing (FTE) by department are not available. Furthermore, the 2007-2008 school numbers are difficult to interpret since many costs have not been allocated to the proper department. I’ve attached two documents analyzing the schools, the first is a department payroll analysis (#4), the second is a reconciliation (#5) of the School’s additional requirements from the 2006-2007 baseline, identifying the sources of the School’s need for an additional $6.25 million in funding from the Mayor’s proposed budget.
Approximately $3.2 million or half of the increase is due to costs outside the School department’s control: unfunded pension liabilities and special educations. All in all, the increase of the School’s controllable budget is limited to a 1.75% year on year increase. The remaining cost increases originate from the last teachers contracts and compliance with unfunded mandates at the state and federal level. Similar to police and fire, the School District must maintain “minimum staffing�, by adhering to maximum class sizes as per RIDE regulation, contract and good practice. This limits the ability of the School’s to cut personnel: Teacher salaries represent almost 50% of the budget.
This being said, I am sure that there are potential costs savings, they are difficult to specify due to the lack of transparency in the budget. I believe that this year the goal should be to limit spending as much as possible and negotiate contracts with the School City bargaining groups that are financially fair, without sacrificing programs like sports, middle school sports, and unified arts.
According to Charter, the City has the authority to request a more transparent document (see section 6.04). Next year, with contract negotiations behind us, the City must request a more transparent document so that the taxpayers can take a hard look at costs.
Thank you for putting all of this information together, Mr. Bloom. I agree that we need more transparency in order to achieve a better understanding of school spending in Cranston.
Kmareka.com 
There were 2 letters from Cranston residents (one from Michael Sepe) in the Your Turn section of the ProJo today regarding Bloom’s budget.
Steve,
I’ll bet $100 you’ll read a post which will state that the budget, as presented, is in compliance of state requirements. Ahhh, transparecy !!!!!!
Mr. Bloom:
I appreciate your reply, and your work in researching all of this information.
I would only say that the school board’s planned “cuts” amount to a questionable $1 million from moving the 6th graders and threats to programs that could benefit critical (though arguably small) groups of students. Also, the school board negotiated a contract three years ago while refusing to give the city a 3-year cost impact. My argument is they should not be rewarded for their lack of cooperation.
On the police station, the property is nowhere near being sold to my knowledge. Whether the $2 million must be applied to debt service or alternately used as income (I was not suggesting using it twice), I don’t see it happening within the next 14 months.
I defer to your research on the furlough question, although I think it would still be a hard sell.
As to the overall question of the school budget within the framework of the city’s operations, we’re about to watch another Caruolo lawsuit take place. I, for one, expect to see the school committee raked over the coals again. Your plan, while noble, would still do little to prevent another lawsuit next year.
—
GCF:
Hmm… might you and I have had a similar back-and-forth over the city budget a few months back? I apologize in advance if I’m incorrect, but I distinctly remember someone harping on the city not providing an Excel spreadsheet. I also remember this same someone issuing angry replies about anonymous posts…
“…the City must request a more transparent document so that the taxpayers can take a hard look at costs.”
That says it all about the way the City works. Why would the budget be in an easy to read spreadsheet that would appeal to a CPA. One of the things I learned after watching the RI General Assembly is there are too many lawyers in the House, just as there are on a City level and if we had more CPA’s…there would be more accountability.
Mr. Bloom is a visionary and realist. We need to change the current process ~ yet, I don’t feel the taxpayers should be burdened more. Especially those parents with children that have special needs/developmental disabilities are already overburdened with paying for extra’s that school programs don’t cover. And now after this NEW budget ~ they will be forced to look elsewhere in this State or country.
And as far as the contracts. I couldn’t agree more with the Ann Marie Cardi in today’s Projo ‘Your Turn’ http://www.projo.com/ri/cranston/content/WB_your_turn_6_05-06-08_0CA1GDB_v7.349c19d.html which states:
Raising taxes not the answer
Mr. [Steven] Bloom,
First let me say that I commend you for getting involved and trying to be part of the solution (“Parent with business sense crafts budget plan for city,� Your Turn, April 29) However, raising taxes is not the answer, even if this weren’t an election year for the mayor and City Council members!
We taxpayers are not seeing 3 percent cost-of-living raises from our employers. In fact, most of us are just grateful for having a job and some form of health coverage which we gladly pay the majority of the cost. Yet you included in your plan a 3 percent tax hike to keep pace with rising salary, health insurance, pension costs and to adequately support education. You go on to state, “If people think 3 percent is unreasonable, what do you think is going to happen next year?�
I suggest Mayor [Michael T.] Napolitano and helpful citizens such as yourself go back to the drawing board, play with the numbers again and review contracts in place to see where opportunities lie to cut back expense when renewals come around.” Ann Marie Cardi, Cranston
Perhaps our School Committee could focus more on some of the other Cities and Towns that are successful. I know a Cranston resident that is taking his family to Texas where he said there is actually a surplus with the Schools and roads are taken care of, tax base is considerably lower. Why can’t someone take a looksee and put more time into this type of work rather than just cutting and taxing what we do here?
Paula McFarland is running for the School Committee according to today’s ProJo.
Jesse,
Not to pry and butt in, but I believe the back and forth
you had over the city budget not being available in Excel wasn’t with the Ghost, but with Tom Cloonen… I could be mistaken.
Richard:
Let GCF speak for him/herself.
For the record, you posted someone’s name online. I did not, and will not.
And, really, I don’t care who it is — I’m just suggesting that it would be ironic if GCF and the previous contributor were the same person. I also offered a preemptive apology if I’m wrong. This was in response to a comment that seemed directed at me and was far too specific to be just a random comment.
Finally, Mr. Bloom was clearly referring to the school budget. GCF seemed to be raising a point about the city budget, so s/he was off topic, too.
Jesse,
I “posted someone’s name online”, ONLY because the post
in question was signed by/willingly attributed to that person. I do not have an issue with those who use pseudonyms on this blog and would never intentionally blow someone’s cover. Every post that I have contributed has my name at the bottom and IF anyone wishes to scan the archives of the site, they too can find the above mentioned topic and the post’s author from mid-year ’07.
Rick– aka Richard Brown
If we could get back to the topic (Rick, I’ve said what I have to say, and I’ll leave it at that), the 5.7 ProJo offered a report on the budget situation.
Link is here:
http://www.projo.com/ri/cranston/content/wb_cranston_caruolo_05-07-08_DQA1TK9_v8.3583718.html
Finally, we know what the Council decided last Saturday:
“(I)n an 8-1 vote, with member Jeffrey P. Barone in dissent, the council approved a non-binding resolution that essentially rejected the push for a settlement.
The committee (council?) called on Napolitano to seek a court order requiring the district to live within its $125.3-million budget for the current fiscal year.”
Not what I had predicted (comment 11 here: https://kmareka.com/?p=1798#comments), but certainly not a surprise, either. The Council is taking a hard stance against the school department’s spending, and rightfully so.
I’ve heard the same old arguments so often before — “It’s unfunded mandates; it’s the contracts” — that it’s pathetic.
The fact is, nearly $8 million of the increase in school funding this year is a result of the teachers’ contract negotiated 3 years ago. See the budget presentation here: http://cpsed.net/super/budget07-08/budget_files/v3_document.htm
and look for slide 21, titled “2007-08 Major Budget Increases/Decreases — Contractual.”
(That’s in addition to a $5 million increase in salary costs in 2006-07, by the way.)
What is the cost of unfunded mandates? The same presentation does not say. Nor does the 2007-08 adopted budget, which you can find here: http://cpsed.net/super/budget07-08/adopted/budget.pdf
I’m very wary to believe the time-worn argument about unfunded mandates until I can see the numbers.
The following letter was printed in the Projo today, I responded to some of the comments / criticisms.
Dear Cranston Residents:
Since presenting my alternate budget I have received many calls, letters, and e-mails. I appreciate the comments and criticism and would like to respond to some of the comments and clarify a few points.
First, the centerpiece of my proposal is not a 3% property tax increase, but rather additional personnel and expense cuts to both the City and School Sides of the budget proposed by Mayor Napolitano. Not only does the alternate budget leave much of the City services intact, but it also provides almost 85% of the funding that the School District has requested for the upcoming fiscal year, preserving essential programs. Although the Mayor claims to have cut spending, the numbers don’t add up. In fact, the Mayor has not cut costs, but only achieved a minor spending reduction of $500K by defunding the schools another $1.0 million. On the other hand, I have proposed the following: cutting staffing ($1074K), leaving positions unfilled ($360K), reducing general expenses ($212K) and instituting a City furlough ($540K) in order to save approximately $2.2 million on the City side and then on the School side reducing their budget request by $1.25 million.
Second, the City’s financial rating is now in jeopardy. In fiscal 2007-2008 which ends June 30, the School District will sustain an operating deficit of approximately $5.4 million (offset by reserves of $0.9 million), for which the School Committee has requested that the City cover $4.9 million out of the Rainy Day Fund or future taxes. Rather than resolving this issue, our City Leadership (Administration, City Council, and School Committee) have elected to litigate this at an estimated taxpayer cost of $350,000 to $500,000. A man wiser than me once said a house divided cannot stand. Our house is divided, and our financial solvency threatened as the Leadership scrambles to assign blame.
Lastly, I agree with much of the sentiment that avoidance of a property tax increase in this current economic environment would be desirable. However, we must implement a balanced budget in 2008-2009 to reverse the School District’s $4.9 million operating shortfall in 2007-2008. We cannot sustain a second drain on the City’s reserves without impacting its credit rating.
This goal is achievable but will require obtaining concessions from all bargaining groups, particularly in the areas of staffing levels, sharing health insurance premium (say 20% to 30%), retirement benefits, and wage increases. This year, the employment contracts of all city employees, excluding the fire department are up for re-negotiation.
Real cuts in spending along with responsible contracts will avoid tax increases and restore fiscal responsibility to our City. We, as residents of Cranston, must tell our elected representatives, The Mayor, the City Council, and the School Committee, that we are not going to accept a tax increase, nor deficit spending that could lead to near bankruptcy for the City once again.
Respectfully yours,
Steven Bloom