Cranston’s Budget Crisis: Distractions, Politics — and the Bills Come Due

by Nancy Thomas, RINewsToday

The city of Cranston is facing a budget crisis not equaled in decades. Over the last two weeks, the Cranston City Council has held public meetings, able to be watched on YouTube or Zoom to review a plan requiring a 7.4% tax increase to maintain services — even with cuts already on the table… including buyout incentives which 17 people have been offered. The city faces somewhere between a $10 and $14M shortfall. Unheard of — particularly with so little public warning.

Two senior financial officers have been let go — one for the city and one for the schools — both career professionals. At least one new finance professional has been brought out of retirement, a former Cranston worker, to help. Hearings have focused on how to cut – people, programs, school repairs, even senior service management. Almost entirely absent from the discussion: how to raise new revenue — and what the city has done, if anything, to pursue it.

The success of Garden City Center stands in contrast to the city’s financial situation. Add in Chapel View’s recent and continuing expansions and the city is economically “hot” on both sides of Sockanosset Crossroads. But peek behind the shopping center and you’ll find small, single family homes with a majority of older Cranstonians mixed in with young families and middle-agers facing an unprecedented tax increase – if it gets approved – or cuts in services – if it is not.

A 7.4% increase could average $500 a year for the modest home owners – $46 a month more. As one person in the galley at the meeting said, “I’ll give you $25!”. But, remember, even with that increase, cuts will and are being made. And they are being made right now.

Without legislative approval, the city is limited to roughly a 3–4% increase — a scenario that would likely mean deep cuts, possible union renegotiations, and delayed school repairs.

In the video, below, at 1:18, you hear from Council President Dan Wall, a relative newbie to the Council, explaining why the Council cannot pass the proposed 7.4% increase — it violates the city’s charter. Days of work stop in a moment as the Council realizes the budget must be redone…So – you have days of work stopped in a moment as the Council realizes the budget must be redone to its current parameters to be passed. Either the Mayor has to do it or the Council has to do it.

The group adjourned to Executive Session, coming out and ending the meeting shortly thereafter at its last meeting a week ago. Nothing has been said officially since.

Tune in to that discussion at 1:18:

This is where politics meets good government.

A Republican Mayor – and several Republican Council members on a Democrat controlled group – and a Democratic RI legislature – the legislature that will have to consider a tax increase of any amount over the 3-4% (still unclear!) allowed at the local level.

RINewsToday learned that a bill has been submitted to the RI Legislature – as a placeholder for now – a bill which would seek approval for an approx. 7.4% tax increase. See the bill link at the end of this article. 

We learned the bill is unlikely – or can’t – move forward because the Council needs to approve a resolution to ask them to do so – and no action to do that has been announced. The clock ticks – changes are happening at the RI legislative leadership top – and a looming deadline to submit new legislation and act on it – well – looms.

To accompany the bill with a 3-4% budget will require a monumental budget work process. Is it underway? No one at the city could give specific answers – or answer at all. Hypothesis were talked about but no “next steps” – so, we checked in with the legislator who submitted the placeholder – and learned more about the process than has been told – and a patient Rep. Chippendale (of Foster), minority leader, and staff, followed up with an explanation Cranstonians and others should find interesting.

Making the Sausage – Cranston style

From Representative Michael W. Chippendale, House Minority Leader – to RINewsToday – 4.23.26

“Whenever an unpopular bill like this needs to be introduced, it is supported by the House leadership and shepherded through the process. We saw that last year with Providence seeking a near identical change. However, Providence is run by Democrats, so the bill was submitted by Democrats, and ushered through by the Democrat Majority.  In this case – it’s a Republican Mayor’s administration – so the Democrats are understandably not interested in touching it.

The proposal was brought forward by Cranston’s municipal leadership. Mayor Hopkins contacted me directly, as the highest-ranking Republican in the General Assembly, to ensure the city’s proposal could be submitted before the legislative deadline. It’s not even guaranteed to be used – this is but one option available for Cranston, and the issue is still under review by the city council.

Under normal circumstances, a local representative would introduce the bill. In this case, Representative Paplauskas is currently reviewing whether doing so himself could present an ethics issue given his role within the Mayor’s administration. At the same time, the Mayor approached multiple Democratic representatives from Cranston to submit the bill, but they declined. With the deadline approaching and no local sponsor secured, I submitted the bill to ensure Cranston did not lose the opportunity to have its proposal considered this session.

As the Minority Leader, I’m the only member of my caucus who can order a bill without it being under anyone’s specific name. When it came up from drafting, there was a submission deadline for this bill to be put in, and that left only me.

My assistance to Cranston was not “blind party loyalty” either. Before agreeing to submit the legislation prior to the deadline, I met with the Mayor at length. We had a candid discussion about how the city arrived at this point and, just as importantly, how it will avoid being in this position again. I would not have taken this step without that conversation, and I am confident that corrective measures are being put in place.

I also want to be clear about what this proposal is intends to address. These are the services that are facing cuts if the city cannot cover this increase. According to the city, this budget:

–              Keeps police, fire, and emergency services fully funded

–              Maintains trash pickup, snow removal, parks, libraries, and recreation programs without interruption

–              Provides an additional $1.5 million to Cranston schools

–              Keeps the Cranston Senior Center open

–              Preserves the overall quality of life residents expect

–              Avoids deeper and more disruptive cuts in the future

It’s important to remember that if the legislation was never submitted, the problem would still exist – and the services above would need to be cut in order to continue under the 4%.

It is also important to note that this legislation cannot advance without action by the Cranston City Council. The Council must first approve a resolution before the General Assembly would even consider final passage.

Submitting a bill is not the same as passing it. Introduction simply allows the proposal to be reviewed, debated, amended, or rejected through the public legislative process. The legislative process includes hearings where residents can weigh in and be heard.

I understand that any discussion involving taxes is serious, and it should be. My role here was to ensure that Cranston’s proposal could be considered – not to remove the public’s voice or predetermine the outcome. It’s giving the city one more “tool in their toolbox” and even if passed, does not mean it would be used.

I encourage all Cranston residents to stay engaged and participate as this moves forward.