The School Committee's $85 million proposal to upgrade the city's aging schools starting as soon as next year was sidetracked Monday as the City Council demanded additional information, including options for the construction of a new high
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 |
|
The School Committee’s $85 million proposal to upgrade the city’s aging schools starting as soon as next year was sidetracked Monday as the City Council demanded additional information, including options for the construction of a new high school and junior high school costing an estimated $100 million each.
The council’s health/welfare/education committee voted to delay action until it has “all the information” after more than three hours of testimony and public comment. That delay could be costly, as schools had planned to get its request for Rhode Island Department of Education funding, which could reimburse as much as 40 percent of the capital projects, in the “pipeline” before state funds are committed to other municipalities.
Even had the council approved the $85 million bond proposal, the plan to make improvements to Warwick schools that have an average age of 62 years and require such basic upgrades as heating systems, wiring and roofs would require General Assembly approval before being listed on the ballot for voter consideration. The School Committee had hoped to get the proposed bond on a special election ballot this November, which, at best, seems to be a long shot given Monday’s vote and the prospect that a RIDE-commissioned schoolhouse assessment study of school capital needs is not expected to be released until May.
Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur, who moved to postpone the vote, said he wouldn’t consider the plan until he’s seen the state report. According to school finance director Anthony Ferrucci, while that report is basically completed, he doesn’t expect it will be released until this May.
But as council members dug into the specifics of school repairs, even claiming they had been given “misinformation” when improvements to the Toll Gate and Pilgrim game fields were mistakenly listed as practice fields, they didn’t hesitate to suggest the construction of new schools.
City Council President Joseph Solomon was not alone in criticizing schools for not offering options to the plan, even though those were studied by consultants and discussed at public hearings over the past two years.
Referencing the tight schedule for a bond referendum to appear on a special election ballot, Solomon charged, “You people pushed yourself in because you have to have it now.” Solomon said he would have liked to have had a special meeting devoted to school improvements and bonding because it “is so important.”
“We don’t have the option to choose,” said Ward 9 Councilman Steve Merolla. “It’s take it or leave it.”
Ward 1 Councilman Richard Corley questioned how schools had come up with $85 million in renovations when their own consultants listed more than $255 million in deficiencies. He asked if the city would find itself in the position of being told it would need to spend that ($255 million) “to be compliant.”
Facetiously, he asked, “Wouldn’t it be cheaper to close schools and send them to a place and pay tuition?”
Dean Johnson, who unsuccessfully ran for School Committee last fall, urged the council not to approve the bond request. He urged the council to take a “bold move” and to think of building new. He said a “super junior high school” could be built at the site of the former Gorton Junior High School, which is being re-purposed for school administration offices. The sale of Vets and Winman could help finance the project that he thought would cost $92 million. Johnson also proposed further consolidation of elementary schools.
“Putting $85 million into 50- to 60-year-old buildings is a great waste,” he said.
“Building new sounds great,” countered Winman science teacher Carolyn Higgins, “but when it comes down to dollars and cents, I think fixing schools is going to be an easier sell.”
She had an ally in School Committee member David Testa. He said building deficiencies have been carefully documented and the time to address them is now.
“We’ve kicked the can so far down the road that we’ve run out of road,” he said.
“I would love to have new buildings, but these buildings aren’t crumbling,” he said, noting that other communities have schools that are older than Warwick’s and they have been renovated to keep up with technology.
“We don’t need state-of-the-art facilities, we need good facilities,” he said.
Mayor Scott Avedisian did not attend the meeting, but in response to an email he questioned if taxpayers would support borrowing as much as $400 million to build new schools.
“I have no pre-determined figure to support. I would like to see a plan that retrofits a number of buildings and constructs additional space as needed. And despite our reasonably low bonded indebtedness, I do not think voters would respond favorably to a $400 million bond request. That would never get approved. Therefore, a reasonable plan to fix existing structures is the way to go,” he said.
What would an $85 million bond issue mean to taxpayers?
City Finance Director Ernest Zmyslinski said Wednesday that the cost of principal and interest payments would average $6.8 million a year for 25 years. But, he observed, if the state reimburses 40 percent of the bond cost, the annual cost to taxpayers would drop to about $4.1 million. At the current residential tax rate this would result in a 40-cent tax increase, or $80, for a home valued at $200,000.
Zmyslinski put the city’s general obligation bond indebtedness at $44.5 million, “which is considered very, very low for a community this size.”
“We have the debt capacity,” he said, “but it is the willingness of the decision-makers.”
At Monday’s meeting, Solomon questioned the rush, adding that the council needs to do its due diligence.
“Let’s get the facts straight,” he said. Coley added, “If we don’t have all the information, we’re being disrespected.”
School Committee chair Bethany Furtado urged for prompt consideration of the bond request.
“If we can get 40 percent reimbursement, doesn’t it make sense to act now?” she asked.
Nate Cornell, a member of the Community Outreach Educational Committee and former committee candidate, accused schools of putting out “false numbers.”
Another member of the public, Steve Boyle, pointed out that Warwick has experienced 16 years of consecutive tax increases and “this is where we are.” He thought a combination of repairs and new construction would be the best solution.
“Our schools are a representation of our city and they’re disgraceful,” said Robert Cote.
A frequent critic of the city administration, Cote argued the school department needs qualified building professionals to evaluate conditions.
“You don’t have the right people on your team,” he said.
“Can this community afford a couple of new schools?” asked Ferrucci. He said there had been no indication during the review of building conditions that new buildings were a consideration, and rather, the emphasis was on identifying and prioritizing renovations and upgrades.
He said the intent has been to get all the information out so the department gets “out in front of the cycle” in order to bring the question to the voters. In his email Avedisian brought up his proposal of several years ago.
“I know that the oldest building in our system is Oakland Beach School, built in 1911. The average age of our school buildings is about 62 years old. I favored buying the New England Institute of Technology campus on Post Road when they moved to East Greenwich, but the School Committee did not. Toward that end, New England Tech added new programs, increased their student population and now has three campuses serving more students,” he said.
A GOING OVER THE NUMBERS:
Robert Cote (left) and school finance officer Anthony Ferrucci compare construction costs for school renovations. PLEADING THE SCHOOL CASE:
School Committee Chair Bethany Furtado talks with Ward 8 Councilman Joseph Gallucci during a recess in Monday night’s council meeting.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
richardcorrente
I was there. I heard it first hand. I heard a City Council that I was proud of. They stood up for the Taxpayers! Thank you Ed, Joe, Rick, Donna, Joe, Steve, Jeromy, Tim, and Steve. What I heard Monday night and also last week was true leadership!
We give the School Committee $160,000,000 a year; more than the rest of the city PUT TOGETHER! And they are not accountable to anyone, not the Mayor, not the City Council, not anyone. That's insane! And now they aren't just asking for $85,000,000. They are asking for $85,000,000 MORE! (The definition of "insanity" is "doing something over and over and expecting a different result" - Albert Einstein)
They are in essence saying "You gave us $160 million a year and we squandered it (and we won't even tell you how), so now please give us $85 million MORE! Don't worry. We won't spend it on ourselves. Trust us!"
Well, I for one don't! I don't trust them. I believe we should give them two honest choices.
1. Become accountable. Reverse the legislation that makes you totally unaccountable to anyone from the moment you receive your annual budget. or
2. Get less money. A lot less. If I were the Mayor or a member of the City Council that is what I would do.
Happy snow day everyone.
Rick Corrente
The Taxpayers Mayor
Thursday, February 9, 2017 Report this
davet1107
Mr. Corrente, these comments border on the bizarre. I’d remind you that the School Committee is accountable to the voters, those same voters who elect the Mayor and the Council. You use the word “squandered”. Really? You know that approximately 85% of the school budget is salaries and benefits, the largest portion of which is for teachers and support staff, and of the remaining 15%, the large majority of that is earmarked by Federal & State mandates. So please explain to me where the money is “squandered”? As you seem to conveniently ignore, the schools have been virtually level-funded over the last 8-9 years and in that time they closed multiple buildings and reduced staff to live within their means. So you want to “reverse the legislation” that makes them unaccountable? Huh? So you’re telling the voters that you don’t trust them to make their own decisions to elect their School Committee members. Nice view of the electorate you have there. As far as “get less money” that’s as sophomoric a comment that I’ve ever heard and shows that you don’t understand how education funding works at all. You are a smart man, Mr. Corrente but you just don’t know that much about schools, their funding, or their governance.
David Testa
Thursday, February 9, 2017 Report this
Thecaptain
Dave,
Don't waste your time trying toe reason this man. Fecklessness is a disease that cannot be curd. In particular, I find it amazing that an individual who is a tax delinquent to this day has the balls to even make a comment on anything financial in this city. Mr. Corrente, aka Pinocchio, aka the Non Taxpayer Mayor, should dig deep into his piggy bank and pay his car taxes. We the taxpayer already absorbed his property taxes for 4 years while he lived as a squatter. But dont count on him paying taxes. Any man that would argue in court that he cant afford to pay 410/week for child support is not someone of character that should be taken seriously with any comment that he makes.
The Non-Taxpayer Mayor continues to talk about people paying taxes. He obviously is speaking about everyone other than himself. Here are some facts: This has to do with the Non-Taxpayer Mayor and his delinquent car taxes.
Fact - His 2009-10 car tax payments - ALL PAID LATE
Fact - His 2010-11 car tax payments due July 15 2010 not paid until January 25 2012. 18 months late.
Fact - His 2011-12 car tax payments due July 15 2011 not paid until January 25 2012. 6 months late. (as he was not able to re-register the vehicle)
Fact - His 2012-13 car tax payments due July 15 2012 not paid until March 3 2013. 8 months late.
Fact - His 2016-17 car tax payments due July 15 2016 - No payments made as of this date. Late again. Habitually late.
Then there is the issue of the same time that he wasn't paying his property taxes, mysteriously, his car, although still parked at 177 Grand View Ave, in Warwick, mysteriously came off the tax roles and no taxes at all were paid on it. Most likely because it was unregistered, yet still on the road . So between 2013 - 2016 to what city was he paying a car tax to for the same car that has been in use all this time? Another example of the Non-Taxpayer Mayor's credibility.
Thursday, February 9, 2017 Report this
Thecaptain
Oops, typo's.
Don't waste your time trying to reason this man. Fecklessness is a disease that cannot be cured.
Any man that would argue in court that he cant afford to pay $10/week for child support is not someone of character that should be taken seriously with any comment that he makes.
Thursday, February 9, 2017 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear Dave1107, Dave Testa,
I agree that I don't know as much as you do about the Warwick Schools. Here's what I do know. The Taxpayers are forking over $160,000,000 to an organization that is not accountable to ANYONE, not the Mayor, not the City Council, not the Taxpayers.
We don't have a Police Committee, a Firefighters Committee, or a Municipal Committee. Those organizations are managed by the City Council. Only the School Department is totally "out of control". Plus, the Taxpayers pay more to the School Committee than all other areas COMBINED! You say that the School Committee is "accountable to the voters". Then I suppose we can count on your undivided support repealing the legislation that makes the School Committee accountable to no one. That way they will be "accountable to the voters" as you say.
Happy Snow day everyone.
Rick Corrente
The Taxpayers Mayor
Friday, February 10, 2017 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear Dave1107, Dave Testa,
I agree that I don't know as much as you do about the Warwick Schools. Here's what I do know. The Taxpayers are forking over $160,000,000 to an organization that is not accountable to ANYONE, not the Mayor, not the City Council, not the Taxpayers.
We don't have a Police Committee, a Firefighters Committee, or a Municipal Committee. Those organizations are managed by the City Council. Only the School Department is totally "out of control". Plus, the Taxpayers pay more to the School Committee than all other areas COMBINED! You say that the School Committee is "accountable to the voters". Then I suppose we can count on your undivided support repealing the legislation that makes the School Committee accountable to no one. That way they will be "accountable to the voters" as you say.
Happy Snow day everyone.
Rick Corrente
The Taxpayers Mayor
Friday, February 10, 2017 Report this
davet1107
Mr. Corrente, your analogies are silly. I totally disagree with your assesment that the School Committee is "out of control". For your edification, the vast majority of school committees across this country are elected. Appointed school committees are the small minority and for good reasons - they don;t work. Lastly, you''d be extremely hard-pressed to find any community where taxpayer support of schools does not take up most of the local tax dollars. In fact, in most other communities, it's a significantly higher % than what we have here in Warwick. Lastly, I could not support any attempt, legislatively or otherwise, to take away from the voters their right to elect their school committee.
Friday, February 10, 2017 Report this
Thecaptain
DaveT,
Dave, don't even try to educate this man as it is a complete waste of time. In the 2 years that he walked for office, he never took any initiative to educate himself on any issue. As of this date, still does not know how to use APRA, or even how to find the WFD contract. Yet he claims that his opinions represent the taxpayers. (maybe he represents the "non-taxpayers"). With the car tax issue the most widely debated issue in the state, only second to pensions, this man still doesnt pay his car taxes. There's a fine example of responsibility.
View Bill
As of
2/10/2017
Bill Year 2016
Bill 26035873
Owner CORRENTE, RICHARD C
Motor Vehicle ID BANKRS
View payments/adjustments
Installment Pay By Amount Payments/Credits Balance Interest Due
1 7/15/2016 $40.59 $0.00 $40.59 $2.84 $43.43
2 10/15/2016 $40.56 $0.00 $40.56 $2.84 $43.40
3 1/15/2017 $40.56 $0.00 $40.56 $2.84 $43.40
4 4/15/2017 $40.56 $0.00 $40.56 $2.84 $2.84
Interest $0.00 $11.36
TOTAL $162.27 $0.00 $162.27 $11.36 $133.07
Friday, February 10, 2017 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear Dave1107, Dave Testa,
Don't lie.
I never said I wanted to "take away from the voters their right to elect their School Committee".
I just want the School Committee to be accountable when they receive it. 80,000 taxpayers agree with that idea. I haven't met one that hasn't.
Do you agree with that?
Rick
Saturday, February 11, 2017 Report this
davet1107
Mr. Corrente,
I lied? The please explain what you mean when you said (in multiple posts): "Reverse the legislation that makes you totally unaccountable to anyone from the moment you receive your annual budget."
What specific legislation are you referring to? Per our Charter, the SC is accountable to the voters. The only way you'd make them accountable to the Council (which is what you defacto advocate when you say there's no Fire Committee or Police Committee) is if you move to an appointed SC. Is that what you're advocating? If so, I'd remind you that the Sewer Board is an appointed body and you can look at its history of fiscal prowess and, at times, Council meddling, to gauge the effectivenss of an appointed body. Again, the SC is accountable to taxpayers - that would be the voters. They are accountable - their budget is audited every year. What you're advocating for is control and political control of a nonpartisan SC is a recipe for disaster. The vast majority of school governance is not designed that way and for good reason. If voters don't like the job that their councilperson or SC member is doing, they have a simple remedy - it's called an election. Fnally, I have to repeat that the Council has essentially level funded schools for the past 9-9 years while at the same time, that same Council has presided over a 50+% increase of the City side of the ledger. Where's your equivalent outrage? We're very close to a 50/50 split in local tax allocations between the city and schools. I'd invite you to do some research on how many other cities/towns are at that level. You won't find very many.
David Testa
Sunday, February 12, 2017 Report this