“We’re not going to get any other business done here tonight. In fact, I don’t know if we’re going to complete this here tonight,” said City Council President Joseph Solomon on Monday night …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
“We’re not going to get any other business done here tonight. In fact, I don’t know if we’re going to complete this here tonight,” said City Council President Joseph Solomon on Monday night during public comment on the school bond issue.
He was right.
After nearly four hours of discussion and questioning, school administrators, the City Council still had not reached a decision on allocating the $4 million in school bond funds that would be crucial to making repairs to the heating system at Vets.
Superintendent Philip Thornton, who was seated with School Committee Chair and Vice Chair Beth Furtado and members of school administration, indicated they were prepared for what’s to come.
“We will go back on the 20th [of March] and continue to advocate for our schools,” he said in an email on Tuesday.
The Council again peppered school administrators, particularly Chief Budget Officer Tony Ferrucci and Building and Grounds Director Steve Gothberg, with questions seeking more information. After his questioning of Ferrucci, Councilman Richard Corley said he supported making issues at Vets a priority, but wasn’t sure if the schools needed $4 million to do so.
“I can support the idea of making a change in the heating system and air exchange system at Vets. That should be the number one priority. I don’t know if you have already settled that $4.8 million still from the you money received last year – I don’t know how much more money you need in order to be able to take care of the property at Vets whether it’s the kitchen, elevator, and HVAC system but I think those would be the big priorities that I would be looking at and I don’t think you need the $4 million in order to do that,” Corley said.
“I think it’s probably half that. And I think that’s what I would probably be arguing with fellow members of the Council concerning what should be appropriated for this bond because once it’s spent, it’s spent.”
Questions, particularly from Councilman Ed Ladouceur, went long into the night and many had left by the time the public was able to offer comments. However, some remained. Resident and former School Committee candidate Dean Johnson said it would be more worthwhile to put money toward new schools, comparing making repairs to the old buildings to “putting lipstick on a pig.”
“Other communities are building new… we should be talking about building new. We have the opportunity now. We know the neighborhood school models don’t work anymore. We don’t have the population,” he said. “We know we’re going to transport kids here and there, so why don’t we build a brand new destination that parents will want to send their kids?”
School Committee member David Testa liked the idea of building new, but didn’t feel it was feasible for reasons of cost and that the gap between the rest of the schools and a new school would widen.
“If we’re going to devote a very large piece of change to a school, whether it has 900, 1,100 kids, 1,200 kids, that’s a $100 million plus proposition. The rest of our schools all have deficiencies that have been identified not only by SMMA, but by RIDE…every other school needs work,” he said. “We can build a new school and that’s nice, but we also have to take care of the schools. We owe it to the students and teachers in our schools, and I don’t see how you can square that circle.”
School Committee Vice Chair Eugene Nadeau also spoke, emphasizing the importance of bond funds to school improvements and to the value of a high school diploma in Warwick.
“That $85 million is important. It was approved by the committee unanimously. It will make the outsides and the insides of those schools into something that our beautiful students deserve,” he said. “I urge the $4 million, I beg of you the $85 million.”
The finance committee postponed a vote on the $85 million bond amount as the committee first wanted input from the State Department of Education. That delay virtually ensures that the bond won’t come before voters in a special election this fall as the School Committee had hoped.
Though Ferrucci and Gothberg did their best to answer the flurry of questions, the Council did not come to a decision on releasing the money for Vets. Councilman Steve Merolla invoked a council rule to end the meeting around 11:30 p.m., designating the continuation of the conversation for the next meeting on March 20.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
richardcorrente
This problem stems from the taxpayers total loss of trust for the School Committee. They don't want $85 million. They want $85 million MORE! The $160 million we already give them EVERY YEAR is being spent with no accountability to the taxpayers. I commend the City Council for taking a stand on behalf of the taxpayers that are paying the $160 million dollar annual tab and refusing to give this organization more of our hard earned, over-taxed money.
We have to fix the School Committee first. We have to regain the trust of the public first. I suggest an audit from an independent third party to
A. uncover any wasteful spending or
B. show that there isn't any waste and shut the critics, like me, up.
Either way, good will come out of it!
How about it SC members? Or are you afraid to show the public what you're really spending their money on. I think you are.
Our student population went from 17,000 to less than 9,000. There HAS to be a reason.
If the decision IS MADE to spend more of the taxpayers money on a kitchen, or an elevator, or an HVAC system, the I strongly advise the intelligent members of the City Council to pay the vendor directly, not give it to the School Committee and "hope" they spend it appropriately. If their intentions are honorable, they shouldn't mind doing it this way and I'm sure all parties can get it done legally and within the constraints of the City Charter.
Personally, I wouldn't trust them with 85 cents. Adding an ADDITIONAL $85 million to the $160 million the taxpayers are presently paying, divided by 9,000 students means the taxpayers would be paying over $27,000 a year FOR EACH STUDENT! That is insane.
Happy Spring everyone.
Rick Corrente
The Taxpayers Mayor
Thursday, March 9, 2017 Report this
DannyHall82
Richard,
I have to respectfully disagree with 160 Million being spent with no accountability. While I don't agree with every action the Committee takes they can only play with the cards they are dealt with. It's ridiculous to hold a 4 million dollar bond that was approved over 10 years ago, its been documented for years that Vets needs an updated heating system. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Council members have made public comments demanding that it be replaced immediately. Now they want to question that they doubt it will cost that much with no information to make that claim? A new school isn't going to be built over night even if the voters approved a bond like that so why can't we fix the important infrastructure issues needed NOW?
Thursday, March 9, 2017 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear DannyHall,
Don't confuse the need for money for our schools with the management of that money by the School Committee. I agree we need to spend the taxpayers money on a heating system. I just don't agree that the SC should be trusted with taking more of the taxpayers money when they have a terrible record so far. They won't even tell the City Council how they presently spend our money. Ask any Council member. (Remember the Ragosta Report?) If there is some way the City Council can monitor, control, final-approve, or regulate with transparency (some how) the monies being spent to insure that they go to the right people, then I am all for it.
The City Charter (I've read it) states that as soon as we give any money to the SC we are not allowed to influence how they spend in any way, shape or form. That's why we should mandate it BEFORE we give them money.
The SC wants you to believe that the need for money and giving that money to them are one in the same. Don't be fooled. The two are miles apart!
Thank you for your respectful disagreement. We both want the same thing. Greater accountability from the SC would achieve that. Hi to your family.
Rick
Friday, March 10, 2017 Report this
DannyHall82
But why freeze that 4 Million when everyone knows the heating system at Vets needs to be replaced? All I heard from teachers, parents and Councilmembers at School Committee meetings was that the system needed to be replaced immediately. That the air quality is dangerous....yet some of these same councilmembers are holding the that is meant for that improvement. If they want to argue the 80+ million bond fine but it's extremely hypocritical of elected officials to show up at School Committee meetings and demand for repairs but turn around at a Council meeting and hold the funds meant for the repairs.
Friday, March 10, 2017 Report this
wwkvoter
Corrente says "adding an ADDITIONAL $85 million to the $160 million the taxpayers are presently paying, divided by 9,000 students means the taxpayers would be paying over $27,000 a year FOR EACH STUDENT! That is insane."
That is totally incorrect. The 85 million is not a one year item it is paid over decades, it's a mortgage if you will. Annual operating budget, and a capital improvement bond, two totally separate budgets. I can see why he is not elected to office.
Saturday, March 11, 2017 Report this
DanElliott
Councilman Corley gave an extensive, "follow the money" presentation. There has been $8 Million available since May 2016, from two separate bonds, plenty of funding to overhaul a school heating system. The City Council wants to know where the money is going.
The only budget item Schools Budget Director Ferrucci shared any information about was fire code upgrades of about $1 Million. Most of the money went to "other projects" and "engineering and design services." That is, SMMA, a Cambridge, MA design company which seems to be gobbling up taxpayer money which should have been allocated for heating upgrades at Vets a long time ago. Now it seems the Warwick taxpayers are looking at spending $7-8 Million "on a pig" as Dean Johnson put it. Again, where did the $8 Million go?
The heating system at Vets has not been a priority. Upgrading and maintaining our public schools has not been a priority for decades. The City Council has decided that it is time for some old-fashioned accountability before another $4 Million goes out the door. As a Warwick taxpayer, I emphatically agree!
Dan Elliott
Greenwood
Sunday, March 12, 2017 Report this
davet1107
Dan Elliot,
From that $25 million issuance, the WPS has spent $10-12 million dollars (it may even be closer to $15 million) for state-mandated Fire code improvements. Further, Mr. Corley admitted that the City and Schools do not use the same acounting systems which make it difficult for him to match up what he;s looking at. He's also said publcly that he's learning the budgeraty systems. That said, of the $8 million you reference, $4.8 is "parked" to be used or the Vets HVAC system. That's leaves $3.2, which is what was used last summer for the Pilgrim & Vets auditoriums, Pilgrim football field, Pilgrim & TG tracks etc. Most of that $8 million did not go to "other things" The engineering studies discussed pertained to the Vets elevator and the Vets HVAC as part of the discussions about those projects. Regarding SMMA, they were vetted publicy during the RFP process for the hiring of the consutant for consoilidation. They were then vetted again when the RFP went out for the architectural firm to oversee the projects and their bid came lower than the two other bidders. In issues like this the firm usually gets a % of the project's value - that's just standard operating procedure. The notion that the WPS can't estimate capital projects or undertake them, play 'shell games' with bond monies and otherwise mismanage their funding is patently false, in my opinion. You're correct, the Vets system, and all these other projects, should have been done decdes ago - but they weren't. The people responsible for that are long gone. The people here now are moving to deal with these issues and yet it appears that we want to deny them the actual funding to do them. Again, I'd simply remind everyone that over the last 8 years the schools have been level funded by the city while the city's side of the budget has increased by nearly $50 million AND a few of the recent city budgets have had to tap the rainy day fund in order to achieve balance - which means they were in a deficit before they even started!. None of that is because of school spending.
Sunday, March 12, 2017 Report this