Cranston council rejects mayor’s 7.4% tax proposal after public outcry over service cuts

The Cranston City Council voted on April 29 to reject the mayor’s proposed FY2026–27 operating budget, which sought a 7.4% permanent property‑tax levy, after residents and council members raised alarm about cuts to senior services, Head Start and school maintenance.

Council president Wahl, who opened the special meeting and framed the council’s twofold duty to balance funding city functions while protecting taxpayers, said he “cannot support this budget” as presented and urged the administration to return with a more balanced proposal. Public comment filled the council chamber: longtime senior‑center advocate Susan Sikosha Olson warned that proposed eliminations, including the assistant director, would “decimate” the Cranston Senior Center’s capacity to provide meals, adult‑day care and social supports. Chris Mansfield, CEO of Conference Community Action (CCAP), said his nonprofit learned from the media that city funding for Head Start and other contracted services was being zeroed out and said closing two Head Start classrooms was a real risk.

Why it matters: Council members and speakers at the hearing described a tightening fiscal picture (the council cited a $6.5 million shortfall in a prior year and said the city is trending toward a roughly $10.4 million deficit). Residents and school officials warned that the proposed levy and program cuts would affect vulnerable populations — seniors, young children and students in need of building repairs and staff — and several speakers asked for an independent audit to clarify how the gap developed.

Arguments and administration response: Community groups and individuals urged the council to reject the rushed process and proposed revenue mix. Tom Wojcick of Cranston Forward called the budget “rushed and opaque,” said the city faces an “unprecedented $10,000,000 budget deficit” and proposed alternatives that include a 4% permanent levy plus a one‑time 3.4% assessment, a $665,000 transfer from the ice‑rink account to the rainy‑day fund, and targeted cuts to capital spending.

The administration’s budget director (identified in the transcript as Director Murrady) defended the proposal as a blunt instrument to fix the gap, said prior administrations had asked for large tax increases in difficult years and told the council there were about 18–22 voluntary workforce reductions offered rather than involuntary layoffs. Murrady warned that rejecting the budget without viable alternatives could force deeper service reductions or involuntary terminations if the mayor’s office cannot find additional solutions.

Council action and legal context: After council debate — in which multiple council members said they would not support a 7.4% increase in its current form and urged sending the budget back to the mayor for rework — a motion to reject the operating budget was made and seconded. The clerk conducted a roll‑call vote: Council members Graziano, Andrew Hart, Ritz, Traficante (Treficante/Traf icante in the transcript), Vaziri, Campiano, Bonanno, Vice President Haroyan and President Wahl voted yes; the motion carried and the proposed operating budget was rejected. Legal counsel explained that rejection sends the proposal back to the mayor to present revisions or to seek General Assembly authorization if the city plans to exceed the state’s 4% tax cap; counsel also noted the charter and the cap create an unusual procedural situation because the mayor’s draft exceeds the statutory cap.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to reject FY2026–27 operating budget — Passed (roll call: Graziano, Andrew Hart, Ritz, Traficante, Vaziri, Campiano, Bonanno, Haroyan, Wahl voted yes). - Resolution adopting operating budget and salary schedule — Rejected by roll call. - Capital budget resolution (FY2027 CIP) — Rejected by roll call. - Two assessment/tax‑levy procedural items — Tabled on advice of counsel for further consideration.

What’s next: With the council’s rejection, legal counsel said the mayor must return with a revised budget that either complies with the 4% cap or is accompanied by legislative authorization to exceed it. Council members repeatedly urged the administration to collaborate on a lower, more transparent budget that preserves core services for police, fire, schools, seniors and social service providers.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions come from the meeting transcript. Where the transcript used variant spellings for some council members and staff, the article uses names and roles as they appear in the record (for example, Director Murrady as the administration speaker).