On a 5-4 vote, the City Council last week adopted an amended version of Mayor Allan Fung’s $302.9 million budget plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1, securing an additional $70,000 in the city’s contribution to Cranston Public Schools through a series of amendments but also effectively removing a projected $4.1 million increase in state education aid from the equation due to lingering uncertainty over where that funding will ultimately materialize.

Fung on Monday said he would sign the budget without vetoing any of the council’s amendments. While some council members had sought more time for the budget review, the mayor and members of his administration urged more expeditious action to adopt the spending plan so that first-quarter tax bills can be issued on schedule.

The mayor said the process of issuing the bills will be “rushed,” but the city “should be able to” hold to the July 15 payment deadline. Robert Strom, the city’s finance director, has said maintaining the first-quarter tax billing and payment schedule is vital because July represents the largest revenue month for the city – and is also the month during which the bulk of municipal debt service payments are made.

In terms of the council’s decision on state education aid, Fung said he would have taken a different approach but understands why members took the course of action they did.

“I know it’s going to create a lot of headaches for the schools and the School Committee, because now they have to align their budgets with what the council submitted to them before June 30,” he said. “I know that’s going to be difficult for the schools … I certainly understand why the council did it, but there were other options.”

The budget process has been upended by the COVID-19 crisis, with Fung’s State of the City address and budget introduction delayed and the council forced to conduct hearings on a condensed schedule.

Fung’s budget seeks no tax increase for the coming year but relies on revenue projections that some council members, including Council President Michael Farina, have suggested are overly optimistic.

The most significant area of concern, however, has been the school district’s budget. Superintendent Jeannine Nota-Masse’s original budget plan for the schools totaled $169.2 million and sought a $1.76 million increase in the city’s contribution, while Fung’s plan for the schools totaled $168 million and provided an additional $400,000 in local funding.

Both the superintendent and mayor included a projected increase of roughly $4.1 million in aid from the Rhode Island Department of Education – a figure that emerged before the onset of the pandemic. As the state faces a deficit currently estimated in the range of $900 million for the current and coming fiscal years combined, it remains unclear whether all – or any – of that projected increase will ultimately be provided.

Additionally, legal counsel for the City Council and the Fung administration have agreed that if the city were to adopt a budget that includes the $4.1 million in increased state aid funding, the city will be responsible for providing the money through “maintenance of effort” requirements in the event it is not provided by the state.

Initially during the council’s special meeting on May 27, there were indications action on amendments and adoption of the budget might be delayed in hopes of more clarity coming from the state level. In the end, however, the process proceeded given the uncertainty over whether more information will be forthcoming at any point soon and the charter’s requirements regarding the budget approval and tax billing timelines.

Ward 6 Councilman Michael Favicchio made a pair of corresponding motions to address the state education aid question – one that removed the roughly $4.1 million from the revenue side of the school budget, and another that did the same on the expenditure side. Both were approved unanimously. Removing that funding from the mayor’s budget brings the total amount of the spending plan for the coming year to roughly $298.8 million.

The hope, Favicchio said, is that the school budget can later be amended to reflect whatever state aid ultimately materializes. The new fiscal year begins July 1.

“I know it’s a tough decision, but I hope it’s the right one at this point in time,” he said.

Prior to the vote on Favicchio’s amendments, Ward 2 Councilman Paul McAuley and Ward 3 Councilman John Donegan had voiced support for instead tapping the city’s so-called “rainy day” fund to provide the full school funding. Strom said that ratings agencies have advised the city to avoid that course of action, and to instead allow any deficit spending to naturally make its way to the city’s bottom line at the end of the coming fiscal year.

Citywide Councilman Steve Stycos spoke in support of Favicchio’s plan, saying it “makes sense given the situation that we’re in.” The General Assembly, he said, has “an incredibly difficult problem to deal with and they’re not exactly showing a great desire to tackle it.”

Farina, too, voiced his support for the move while also criticizing the General Assembly for not acting to provide more certainty.

“We’re in this predicament for one reason and one reason only … because our leadership at the state has not done their job and gotten back to work like this council has, like many council’s across the [state] have,” he said.

Calling the vote the “toughest decision any of us will have to make,” he added: “Do we roll the dice and wish and hope, or do we reduce the revenues, plan flat and then hope that the state gives us more money?”

While the votes on Favicchio’s amendments were unanimous, the vote on adoption of the amended budget was split along unusual lines.

Citywide Councilman Ken Hopkins, Ward 4 Councilman Ed Brady and Ward 5 Councilman Chris Paplauskas joined McAuley and Favicchio in the majority, while Ward 1 Councilwoman Lammis Vargas joined Donegan, Stycos and Farina in opposition.

During the special meeting, Stycos proposed a series of amendments aimed at increasing the city’s contribution to the school district. A handful failed to garner the needed support, although most were approved. His amendments ultimately resulted in an increase of roughly $45,000 to the district’s funding from the city.

Another $24,000 for the district was secured through an amendment from Donegan, which zeroed out funding for the “orders of the council” line item.

Between the amendments from Stycos and Donegan, the city’s contribution to the district was increased from $400,000 in Fung’s proposal to $469,539 in the adopted budget.