Cranston Special City Council Meeting – April 29, 2026: Budget Rejected Amid Public Outcry
Cranston Special City Council Meeting – April 29, 2026
A special meeting of the Cranston City Council was called to order on April 29, 2026, at 22:56 UTC, to consider the proposed Fiscal Year 2026–2027 budget. The meeting featured extensive public comment and council deliberation, culminating in a unanimous vote to reject the mayor's budget, which included a 7.44% property tax increase. The council also rejected related budget resolutions and tabled two tax-related items, effectively sending the budget back to the administration for revision.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Susan Sicosha Olson (36 Rondo Street, lifelong resident, board member of Senior Agenda Coalition) expressed dismay over proposed cuts to the Cranston Senior Center, describing its history as a national model and its essential services for vulnerable seniors. She urged the council to preserve funding for the center.
- Tom Wiljick (Levin Hall Place, member of Cranston Forward) read a statement from the organization condemning the rushed budget process, the 7.44% tax increase (nearly double the state cap of 4%), and proposed cuts including 100% elimination of Head Start funding and a 37% cut to senior services administration. He offered alternative revenue and spending options, including a 4% permanent levy increase plus a 3.4% one-time assessment, transfers from the ice rink account, and cuts to non-essential positions.
- A speaker from CCAP (Comprehensive Community Action Program) noted that the proposed cuts would zero out funding for Head Start classrooms, affecting working families. He stated that CCAP had not been notified of the cuts and asked to be treated fairly, emphasizing the organization's 60-year partnership with the city.
- Kimberly Bagosian (45 Mount View Drive) raised concerns about bumping (retirees filling positions without experience), urged line-by-line contract review, and called for more transparency regarding overtime and the Budlong complex.
- Alice Patrown (24 Bretton Woods Drive) questioned how the city arrived at the crisis, suggesting eliminating high-salaried positions in the mayor's office rather than cutting services for seniors and children.
- Dr. Kathy Toragrosa (1331 Hope Road, teacher) criticized the 7.44% increase, noting it had not been approved by the state, and denounced the mayor's request for retirement incentives. She reported significant layoffs in the school department, contradicting the mayor's statement that there were none.
- Joe Cooney (285 Situate Avenue) called for accountability, noting that the audit committee had not met since 2019, and warned that the tax increase would drive out residents.
- Catherine Crowley (290 Machinic Valley Parkway, Ward Six School Committee representative) expressed dismay over the budget's impact on schools, citing seven roofs and seven HVAC systems needing replacement, and urged the council not to accept the budget.
- Gail Harvey (455 Michannick at Valley Parkway, 81-year-old retiree) appealed for courage from elected officials, highlighting the impact on children, seniors, and families.
- Jesse Dooley (112 Lexington Avenue, CCAP employee) called for union leaders to voluntarily offer concessions and for officials to act with "glands" (courage) to solve the crisis.
- Jessica Karsten Kappa (89 Forest Avenue) asked for a clear explanation of how the deficit arose, questioning funding for the economic development department and fire overtime.
- Steve Steikos (37 Ferncrest Avenue, former finance committee chair) criticized the budget process (two days’ notice, lack of hearings), suggested cuts to capital items like tasers and field lights, and noted that the rainy day fund had dropped from $18–20 million to $6.5 million, insufficient to cover a projected $10 million deficit.
- Ryan Meean Wright (31 Cedar Wood Drive, online) opposed the 7.4% increase, supported a 4% increase with a one-time supplemental, and questioned the involvement of a state representative from Foster in sponsoring the city's tax increase bill.
Discussion Items
- Council President Wall acknowledged the public's opposition and stated that the council must balance funding departments with taxpayer burden. He expressed disappointment with the mayor's budget, called it flawed, and urged the council to reject it and send it back to the administration.
- Councilman Traficcanti (former mayor) traced the crisis to the mayor's entire finance team, not just one person, and noted that other mayors had faced similar crises and used various solutions. He recommended rejecting the budget.
- Council Vice President Haroin said she could not support the 7.44% increase, called it insulting, and emphasized that the problem is not partisan. She noted that if Cranston's own representatives would not sponsor the tax increase bill, it should not go to a floor vote.
- Councilwoman Graziano also opposed the 7.45% increase, felt amendments should be made under a smaller budget, and supported the senior center and CCAP. She clarified that tree care funding should not be cut.
- Councilman Ritz stated he would not support a budget that fixes internal errors on taxpayers' backs, advocated for a 1–2% annual increase, and opposed cuts to police, fire, or schools. He praised the mayor's intentions but said the city needs to slow down.
- Councilman Benano acknowledged the public and Cranston Forward's efforts. He opposed the budget because it does not align with his four-point plan. He suggested expanding economic development, merging departments, and creating a multi-tier tax schedule. He explicitly opposed closing the senior center or reducing school funding.
- Councilman Anduha urged speed, noting the General Assembly session ends in 45 days, and warned that quality of life will suffer regardless. He praised the custodians' union for coming to the table first.
- Councilman Campion thanked the public, said the council must work with the administration, and acknowledged that a tax increase is inevitable but must be minimized.
- Councilwoman Vaziri echoed Vice President Haroin, calling the proposal insulting, and said she would not support it.
- Director Murady (administration) argued that the council had oversight tools (monthly reports, audit committee) and that the mayor's budget, though painful, would fix the problem without reducing services. He warned that rejecting the budget would lead to worse cuts, involuntary layoffs, and reduced school funding. He urged the council to accept the budget and modify it.
- Several council members rebutted Director Murady's statements, saying they were not given timely information, that the budget was based on inaccurate data, and that the council was lied to. Councilman Benano and Council Vice President Haroin rejected blame being placed on the part-time council.
- Councilman Traficcanti called for an end to personal attacks and stressed the need to work together.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to reject the operating budget for FY 2026–2027 (as presented by the mayor) carried unanimously (9–0).
- Motion to reject the resolution adopting the operating budget and salary schedule for the general fund, sewer fund, ice rink, insurance fund, and capital budget carried unanimously (9–0).
- Motion to reject the resolution adopting the capital budget and capital improvement program (FY 2027–2030) carried unanimously (9–0).
- Motion to reject the ordinance making annual appropriations for FY 2026–2027 carried unanimously (9–0).
- Motion to table the resolution authorizing the assessment and levy of taxes (real estate and tangible personal property) carried unanimously (9–0).
- Motion to table the ordinance fixing the tax due date and penalty carried unanimously (9–0).
All budget-related items were rejected or tabled, effectively sending the proposed budget back to the mayor's administration for revision. The council expects a revised proposal with a lower tax increase and more sustainable spending.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. And welcome to this April twenty ninth special city council meeting. At this time, I'd like to call this meeting to order. And I asked the clerk to please call a role. Remember this evening that we'll have public comment on Docketed Matters only. And you'll state your name and address for the record. So by all means, if someone would like to make public comment who's here in the chambers, step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record. My name is Susan Sicosha Olson, and my address is 36 Rondo Street. I'm a lifelong resident of the city of Cranston, and I'm here to express my dismay regarding the proposed cuts to the Cranston Senior Center. I've had many years of experience with the center on both a personal and professional basis. I'm also on the board of the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island, a nonprofit organization that advocates for older adults and those with disabilities. The Cranston Senior Center has a long and storied history. In June of 1989, First Lady Barbara Bush visited the center as it was recognized as one of the best in the country and a model for many others. The population served by the center are some of our most vulnerable residents of the city of Cranston. Many depend on the center for their physical and mental health, their financial assistance, their social well-being and nutritional needs. For some, their lunch at the meal site may be their only meal of the day. The center also provides a place for seniors to take part in educational and fitness classes. All of these activities can help members to be connected to the community while decreasing their social isolation. Loneliness and depression are severe health public risks, increasing a person's chances of premature death, heart disease, stroke, and dementia. My personal connection to the center is through their adult day program. My mother, who had Alzheimer's disease, attended the program daily. She was well cared for so that my father and other family members were able to go to work knowing that she was safe. The proposed cuts and position eliminations will effectively decimate the center's ability to provide quality services. The elimination of the assistant director will have a profound effect. David Kiora is well known not only in Cranston, but also throughout the state. His reputation, dedication, and ability to coordinate and manage the services of the center are exceptional. I ask that you please reconsider any proposed cuts to provide to preserve the excellent quality, excellent quality of services provided to the residents of Cranston. Thank you very much. Thank you. State your name and address for the record. We don't. Sorry. You couldn't hear me because I turned my microphone up. Those are just your comments so we can read along. Yes. Okay. And I probably won't get every point in here so that they're four minutes. Good evening. My name is Tom Wiljick, Levin Hall Place, Cranston. And uh I'm a member of an organization called Cranston Forward, which uh has well over 500 uh members. And we've been uh meeting and brainstorming about the proposed budget, and we've put together the piece that I have just handed out to you. Um I'd like to take the opportunity to read to you and to the gallery here some of the key points. Cranston Forward is a community-based organization that advocates policies to make Cranston more accessible, inclusive, accountable, open, and transparent city. Cranston Forward strongly condemns the rushed and opaque process surrounding the City of Cranston's fiscal year 26-27 budget proposal. The current approach demonstrates a fundamental disregard for constituent input and responsible governance. It magnifies the incompetence of an administration that has allowed an unprecedented 10 million budget deficit to occur under their watch. With just two days' notice for the city council meeting, the administration is intentionally keeping constituents out of the process and forcing through an agenda with little oversight. The meeting agenda appears to have been sloppily copied from last year's agenda, revealing the rushed, careless way that this administration seeks to pass a highly problematic budget. This rather uh futive action contrast with the transparency of past city administrations that provided Cranstonians with a full calendar of hearings and events.
openpublica.com