SOUTH KINGSTOWN –– Testimony in the courtroom clash between the City of Cranston and the Cranston public schools over millions in local education aid came to a close yesterday.

The theme of the day: sharp disagreement over which party is to blame for the schools’ financial woes.

School Committee Chairman Michael A. Traficante suggested the city never followed through with money-saving plans to merge similar municipal and school functions, such as human resources and buildings maintenance.

And expert witnesses for the city countered that the schools’ poor planning and faulty budgeting were to blame.

The back-and-forth capped an often-tense five-day trial that could have long-term implications for the financial health of the city and schools.

“An awful lot is on the line for the kids of Cranston,” said Traficante in an interview after the trial.

Superior Court Judge Judith C. Savage has 30 days to issue a decision.

The schools sued City Hall in May, in what is known as a Caruolo action, claiming that the $125.3 million the city provided the district for the fiscal year that ended June 30 was not enough to adequately run the schools.

The district ran out of cash in mid-June, forcing the city to step in with a $4.1-million loan to cover final payroll and health care expenses.

The final tab has since swollen to $4.5 million, as the last bills for the fiscal year trickle in.

If the schools win the Caruolo case, the $4.5 million will become an outright appropriation –– no repayment required.

And under some interpretations of state law, the $4.5 million would factor into the schools’ base financing formula –– a minimum allocation the city must pony up year after year under state law.

Boosting the base would mean a shot in the arm for the ailing school district –– and a significant hole in the city’s reserves.

If the schools lose the Caruolo case, district officials warn that major cuts and another costly Caruolo action are in the cards.

The core arguments in the trial are quite simple.

Matthew T. Oliverio, the city’s lawyer, held that the schools are not entitled to a financing boost because they ran programs that were not required by law, regulation or contract.

Schools lawyer Ronald F. Cascione maintained that the district made efforts to contain costs, but did not receive enough cash to meet its obligations.

Cascione picked up on that theme Tuesday, pressing City Council internal auditor Stephen L. Woerner on the panel’s decision to allocate just $900,000 of a $7.5-million-dollar property tax hike to the schools that year.

Woerner replied that the city had to use much of the tax hike proceeds to make up for a series of lingering problems from the 2006-07 budget.

The administration of former Mayor Stephen P. Laffey had made a mistake calculating the tax levy the previous year, he said, and had used a series of one-time revenues in the budget.

Corsino Delgado, the city’s finance director, testified yesterday that plugging those holes left just $1.5 million in tax hike revenues –– with $900,000 of it going to the schools.

But the tax hike allocation was not the only point of attack for the schools.

Traficante, the school committee chairman, focused much of his testimony on Project REDIRECT (Reduce Expenses and Develop Income Revenue Enhancement to Control Taxes), a push by City Council President Aram G. Garabedian and Mayor Michael T. Napolitano to merge similar city and schools functions.

Traficante testified that a group of city and schools officials gathered in September 2007 to form a series of subcommittees that would look into consolidation.

Traficante said he headed up a group that examined recreation, transportation and maintenance and submitted a handwritten report to the mayor’s office in February suggesting a series of consolidations that would save some $1.1 million.

But Project REDIRECT fizzled, he said, implying that city officials did not have the backbone to confront the turf wars and job loss associated with consolidation.

Oliverio, the lawyer for the city in the Caruolo case, suggested the project is not dead.

And he noted that the plan kicked off in the midst of the 2007-08 fiscal year anyhow –– after the schools had passed their 2007-08 budget.

The implication: any potential savings would not have affected the schools budget at the center of the trial.

Oliverio also pressed Traficante on the School Committee’s failure to seek concessions from employee unions in the midst of a “financial catastrophe.”

Traficante, a former mayor of Cranston who now works as a union official, argued that workers always request some sort of long-term payback in exchange for a short-term concession.

And the school district, he said, “had nothing to give back.”

Salvatore J. Augeri, a former Westerly schools superintendent who served as the city’s education expert in the trial, was the first witness to take the stand yesterday.

He argued that a responsible school district, facing financial uncertainty, should make a list of programs required by law, regulation and contract and a list of extras.

Officials should then make cuts to live within their budget, he said.

The Cranston schools, he suggested, did not take that course –– but should have.

Augeri laid out about $4 million in cuts he would have made as superintendent –– chopping elementary school guidance counselors, an enrichment program for gifted students and middle school sports, among other programs.

Tapping reserves and a small surplus from the prior year, Augeri said, the district could have made up the $4.5-million shortfall in 2007-08.

Cascione, the schools’ lawyer, sought to undermine Augeri’s testimony –– pointing out that he had not visited school programs and that he relied on a single report from a district official in drawing his conclusions.

Augeri testified that he had met with the superintendent and other top brass and had a detailed understanding of state regulations.

He added that the district report, which detailed education programs in excess of state requirements, provided him with plenty of solid information.

City lawyers will be in court tomorrow asking for a dismissal of the schools’ lawsuit. If Savage denies the request, the two sides will await her decision on the Caruolo matter.

dscharfe@projo.com