CRANSTON

Bloom answers critics

[Editor’s note: Steven Bloom, a Cranston businessman and father of three, crafted an alternate version of Mayor Michael T. Napolitano’s budget that would allott $6.25 million more to the schools.]

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 the 3 percent 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 percent of the funding that the school district requested for the coming 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 $500,000 by defunding the schools another $1million. On the other hand, I have proposed the following: cutting staffing, ($1,074,000), leaving positions unfilled ($360,000), reducing general expenses ($212,000) and instituting a city furlough ($540,000) to save approximately $2.2 million on the city side, and reducing the schools’ budget request by $1.25 million.

Second, the city’s financial rating is now in jeopardy. In fiscal 2007-08 which ends June 30, the school district will sustain an operating deficit of about $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 2008-09 to reverse the school district’s $4.9-million operating shortfall in 2007-08. 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 percent to 30 percent), retirement benefits and wage increases. This year, the employment contracts of all city employees, excluding the Fire Department are up for renegotiation.

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, or deficit spending that could lead to near-bankruptcy for the city once again.

Steven Bloom

Cranston

WEST GREENWICH

Tax-and-spend squeeze

With the restriction on tax levy increases imposed by the state 3050 law, West Greenwich is seeing the municipal side of its town budget seriously diminished to support the Exeter-West Greenwich regional schools’ budget. The Town Council is forced to dip into the rainy-day fund, lay off police officers and reduce highway maintenance and Town Hall services, and it may have to curtail the youth summer recreation program.

State law imposes a descending cap on the amount of annual tax that cities and towns may levy and on the amount of increase that may be contained in school district budgets. The cap began in fiscal 2007 at 5.5 percent and descends in quarter-point increments to 4 percent in fiscal 2013. The law, as intended, effectively slows the rise in property taxes. However an unintended consequence has appeared that is unique to the regional school districts, wherein the funding of school budgets is apportioned to member towns according to the number of students enrolled. The apportionment may commit the town with more students to an increased amount that, when added to the town’s municipal spending, exceeds the cap for the allowed tax levy. Such is the case for West Greenwich which was apportioned two-thirds of the Exeter-West Greenwich budget increase due to having more students enrolled.

The School Committee had diligently developed a budget with a moderate increase of 3.5 percent, well below the 5 percent allowed by state law, but the West Greenwich Town council, rightfully concerned with operating the town, could not support the proposed schools budget. At the district financial meeting council President Thaylen Waltonen spoke poignantly of his and the council’s enduring support of the school district and of the adverse impact that the proposed budget would have on the town. Nevertheless, the attending residents approved the budget.

Councilman Robert Butler sent an e-mail expressing the council’s concerns to town residents on the day of the financial district meeting. A more timely appeal to town residents, who have the highest respect for the council, may have brought more West Greenwich residents sympathetic to the council’s view point to the financial meeting.

These are not new circumstances. In the past, Exeter experienced the same harmful imbalance between town and school spending when Exeter had the larger student enrollment. Under current circumstances, even if the School Committee contains school budget increases within state-law restrictions, the West Greenwich budget imbalance will worsen due to the town budget, with the larger portion (75 percent) going to education, having more exposure to school spending increases; the state shifting its education costs onto the towns; and the relentlessly lowering cap on tax levies. At the local level little can be done to relieve this problem. The School Committee and town councils could seek an amendment to the law that would provide specific relief to regional school district towns.

William H. Clay

West Greenwich

Items for this column may be e-mailed to wbnews@projo.com, faxed to (401) 277-7227, or mailed to The Providence Journal, West Bay Bureau, 75 Fountain St., 3rd floor, Providence, R.I. 02902. You can reach us at (401) 277-7090. All letters must include your address and a daytime telephone number.