Nov 13 meeting

A rather uneventful meeting last night, all things considered.  Hopkinton Town Council members Barbara Capalbo and Sylvia Thompson spoke about moving forward.  Mrs. Capalbo presented a few ideas such as to allow each town to use district reimbursments for individual Elementary school repairs/expansions and to change the Chariho Act to achieve an equalized tax (district wide tax base).

Doreen Dolan was present with other members of C.U.R.E (the political action committee created to promote the bond).  She expressed displeasure with the outcome of the vote and said it was a vocal minority mostly speaking for Ashaway and not Hope Valley, that opposed the bond. 

Andy Polouski said some interesting comments.  He suggested that Hopkinton work to improve Chariho (I guess he means another bond) or leave and he personally hoped that Hopkinton would leave the district.  He went on to say that he wanted tax equalization too, and that Charlestown currently pays more “per pupil” than the other towns.  

Mr. Polouski looks at the ‘equalized contributions’ much like Mr. Hosp – they consider what the town contributes (net of state reimbursements) to be the “contribution” – not what the taxpayer contributes.  The problem with this philosophy is that taxpayers vote – towns do not vote (well, maybe in North Providence).  

The Campus 2010 flyer showed the effect of the “equal thirds” split from this bond.  An owner of a home ($X value) in Charletown pays $1200, an owner of a similar valued home (same $X) in Hopkinton would pay $3600.   In Richmond it would be $3900.

All that being said, there are arguments related to (equal?) taxation with/without representation.  Thus the veto each town obtains.

We have a similar situation here in Hopkinton – on a smaller level.  There are differences between the taxable property base in Hope Valley and Ashaway, but we tax the town as a one whole.  So a $300,000 home property owner in Hope Valley pays the same tax as someone with the same home in Ashaway.  The idea being we share the resources equally.   But, the towns don’t have veto power over each other.  If we evaluated Hope Valley and Ashaway separately, and one of the towns had more industry (producing taxes), those residents would pay less taxes. 

There are arguments for both sides but the current town veto ensures that the low tax area doesn’t spend the high tax area into bankruptcy.

Overall, the board was eerily silent.  Why would the school board not want to find a solution to the failed bond, or at least talk about it? 

There are ideas being floated about in the rumor mill and press –  1.  Hopkinton is somehow convinced to voluntarily leave the district (obviously, the veto would bar a forced removal).   2.  A district wide tax base is created that would result in majority voting (no more town veto power).  3.  They try the bond again. 

Number 3 was hinted at in the Westerly Sun.

“To discuss only with the town of Richmond is not going to resolve the problem,” [Charlestown Town Council past president] Waterman said. “I think you start out with the hope that you can resolve (the problem), and if you find you can’t, then you move on. I have a feeling Hopkinton has received the message that they didn’t just shoot themselves in the foot, they shot us… and Richmond in the foot.”
 

How to get it back on the ballot was proposed by the new president, John Craig:

[Craig} will ask both Chariho Superintendent Barry J. Ricci and councilors from Hopkinton and Richmond to meet prior to January’s annu­al Omnibus Meeting to dis­cuss disagreements over school funding – and possible solutions to the problem.
 

But Superintendent Ricci doesn’t seem to think its going to happen.   

Though Ricci is not anticipating a new bond anytime soon, he did explain for a bond to get underway — a building committee must be  formed at a special district meeting.

 

In talking with Ricci and going over the Chariho Act, there are two ways to call for a special district meeting, (1) at the order of the school committee, or (2) by residents of the district collecting at least 200 votes.

In that same article, I’m quoted as saying I would support the section of the bond for the High School if the bond was split.  This was certainly my position when I was first asked  by fellow board member Giancarlo Cicchetti months ago (you would be surprised how few people actually ask).  My problem with the High School work was that much of it should be handled in the budget – but if the budget was addressed (i.e. union contracts) and money was budgeted for maintenance, I would support the HS work.  But that was before I realized what the impact of the “1/3 split” would be.  It just doesn’t make sense.  A family in Charlestown who makes the same income and lives in the same house as someone in Hopkinton, but the Hopkinton resident pays three times the price.  That is not a 1/3 split.

Furthermore, if I was in  Charlestown, I would want to build a very nice school – after all, Charlestown can afford it and Richmond doesn’t seem to mind the tax inequity.    The idea that Richmond and Charlestown would form a separate District is a perfect world for Charlestown – for every dollar contributed by homeowners to the District, it breaks down such that Richmond homeowners will pay 74 cents while the Charlestown homeowner (of similar valued properties) will only pay 36.  I would take that deal too.