Education spending, not legal spending, is what we want in Cranston. I am very happy to hear that former Mayor Traficante and current Mayor Napolitano are on the same page as the rest of us on this. From the Projo:
[…] With both sources of money in play, Napolitano said, a settlement is possible.
“We are willing to negotiate,� he said. “We are confident we can agree to a figure.�
But finding other sources of funds, if necessary, could be a difficult proposition for the mayor.
The administration has already raised property taxes to balance the budget.
And Napolitano said yesterday that he would be hesitant to issue a supplemental tax bill to pay for a portion of any education settlement.
The mayor also said he would be reluctant to tap the city’s $19.9 million reserve fund.
If the administration does reach a settlement of some kind, it will face another challenge.
State law requires the city to maintain at least the same level of education support from year to year.
So adding, say, $2 million to the budget this year means the city would have to add $2 million next year as well.
And without another police station to sell, that could be difficult, critics say.
“What are you going to do next year when the one-time source is not there?� said David Exter, chairman of the Cranston Republican City Committee.
Carlucci said the city hoped to save money through a joint city-schools effort designed to consolidate services such as building maintenance and personnel.
Officials are also hoping the General Assembly, which refused to increase aid to local schools this year, will boost aid next year, he added. (Cranston had anticipated a $1-million increase this year.)
But the immediate concern is the School Department’s projected $4.2-million deficit for the current fiscal year.
The number, based on figures compiled through the end of August, is not a big surprise.
In the spring, the schools requested millions more than the cash-strapped city ultimately provided.
And in June, with talk of a Caruolo action already swirling, the Sschool Committee passed a spending plan that officials knew could not hold.
Now, the cost of salaries, benefits and supplies is coming in $3.2 million higher than budgeted, according to projections.
Michael A. Traficante, the chairman of the School Committee, said the board will wait until the September figures arrive before taking any official steps.
But he expects the schools to begin negotiations with the city for more money this month.
“They’re very well aware that our budget needs a boost,� he said, referring to city officials.
Traficante said the School Department would do “everything humanly possible� to avoid a costly Caruolo lawsuit in Superior Court. [full text]
When you read about how well our high schools are doing at reorganizing to reduce class sizes, you can only imagine how this would have been impossible if teaching positions were eliminated in order to stay within the unrealistic budget that was provided by the city. I was also pleased to read in the article that there is a joint effort to consolidate services between the school department and city-side. Let’s hope this is possible and that the savings are significant.
Kmareka.com 
Kiersten, what’s most disturbing about this article is the Napolitano administration’s proposal to “draw on the $2 million to $2.5 million it hopes to fetch from the sale of the former police headquarters on Atwood Avenue.
And the administration, he said, could also tap about $750,000 sitting in a contingency fund.”
They’re now proposing what they lambasted Laffey for – using one-time sources of funds to pay for recurring expenses. The school budget deficit will not go away – in fact, it is more likely to grow over time as the school budget increases.
Lastly, let’s not forget that the next teachers’ contract will be negotiated in the coming year. That has a bigger impact on the school budget than any consolidated, or redundant, services ever will.
CaptainQ:
Much agreed to your points about school funding. What I’m wondering is, after trying to get the school district to publish a cost estimate for the last contract (which the school board failed/refused to do — take your pick), what else can the city do to try and stop the seemingly inevitable hikes in school costs?
After reading the sidebar linked above, it’s clear that class sizes can be reduced by shifting positions from one area to another. My issue is, it shouldn’t take school administrators that long to figure it out!
Also wanted to note the improvement of the city’s bond rating as reported in today’s ProJo:
link to projo
As to how it may relate to this thread, the city may be able to restructure some of its short-term debt and save some money on interest costs. Unfortunately, the story does not speak to actual amounts of borrowing that could be affected or to potential savings. But even if it’s $2 million or $3 million, it could make a difference.
Oh, and also that the bond rating is improving (admittedly by a small bit) because the surplus funds have remained untouched. I was actually surprised that Dave Exter didn’t trot out the dusty old (entirely false) GOP talking point about “raiding the rainy day fund.”
Actually, “raiding the rainy day fund” is not entirely false and, I think, it will be the end result of the inevitable Caruolo action – which, mark my words, will take place regardless of the add’l funding from the City.
Jesse, you raise an excellent point regarding the school committe’s failure to produce a cost estimate for the last contract. It was clearly in violation of the Ordinance passed shortly before the contract was presented to the School Committee.
CaptQ:
My point (“entirely false”) was more to the fact that the current budget does not use any surplus funds, as the Repubs predicted during the campaign last year.
But I do see where the possibility exists that a court could side with the schools in a Caruolo suit. But they lost a couple of years ago, and they could lose again, too.
A couple of other issues in play here: the state-max tax hike may show that the city has no more room to raise taxes (which is usually how cities are ordered to raise more money); the surplus is being held for bond rating support, which would be endangered if the money were used; and there’s a general sense that school spending statewide has to be reformed, and that may translate into a precedent-setting court ruling. Also, as I noted above, the city may be able to do some restructuring of debt and “find” another couple of million dollars in interest savings that could then go to the schools.
So I think there are other possibilities beyond just using the surplus.
The two of you both raise good points.
Along these lines, I have a question for both or either of you: why don’t we pay more attention to the school committee elections? After all, the school is by far the largest chunk of the budget; isn’t it logical that we would devote more attention to the people who negotiate the contract that’s going to spend this money? In some ways, because of the impact on the budget, the school committee may be as important as the City Council.
I will admit that maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention. But shouldn’t we make the candidates for school committee tell us how they plan to vote on upcoming contract negotiations? And is this why the contract runs for three years? So it falls, mostly, in between elections?
My apologies if I’m missing the elephant in the room, but I haven’t lived in Cranston all that long.
School board campaigns simply get lost in the noise, and are thus decided by a couple of thousand votes. The exception last year was John Lombardi, who took 20,000+ votes (more than the mayoral candidates). Otherwise, the counts were similar: even Traf only got 3,800 votes running unopposed. One other thing that happens is, when the candidates go out to meet the voters, they will do anything not to speak against the teachers (and, by extension, the contract).
I believe the fact that the School Committee positions are nominally non-partisan has a lot to do with their reduced recognition by the voters. Plus, as I recall from Kiersten’s excellent interviews with Mike Traf., something like 2/3’s of the voters in Cranston do not have children in the school system. Thus, they are not aware of school issues.
If the city’s tax bills delineated the $15.34/thousand residential tax rate into (for ex.) $10.74 for schools and $4.60 for city services, the overall electorate would become very cognizant of how important the School Committee is!
From my personal experience, having walked the campaign trails in support of various candidates (most of them running for City Council) going back to 1980, the most frequent questions I recall related to schools. Of course, the council candidates admitted to being somewhat powerless on school issues!
Jesse,
Get you facts straight, it was Frank Lombardi, not John. Your facts or predictions about Carrullo are way off………
JoeSmith: Apologies for the error.
Please offer a constructive response to my Caruolo statement (that’s the correct spelling, so I guess we’re tied 1-1 on errors). I’d prefer to think that you’re ready to debate it, as opposed to posting judgments.
And let me remind you: I offered possibilities that I feel are plausible. The city very well could argue (and rightly so) that taxes have already been raised to the state maximum — meaning that the Assembly, not the courts, would have to approve a higher rate. Thus, the decision would go like this: a court would (conceivably) order the city to petition the Assembly, as opposed to simply imposing higher taxes. There’s also a prior record for the Cranston School Department being denied their request and having to live with what the city has given them. And this year, with all of the noise being made about school funding, a judge very well could make a judgment (much like the unconstitutional ruling made in 1994, I think it was) that the burden is on the state, not the local cities, to come up with the money. That’s what I meant by “precedent-setting court ruling.”
Hypothetical? Yes. But just as plausible as any other possibilities, I would argue.