Visit the PSD site to download.

Last night's Portsmouth school committee workshop on the proposed facilities plan saw lots of questions but no vote, though chair Dick Carpender did promise to ask for a vote at the scheduled meeting next Tuesday.

"While RIDE (the Rhode Island Department of Education) will ultimately decide," said facilities subcommittee chair Mike Buddemeyer, "I'm looking for support to move forward." He urged the committee to "get something into the hopper" at RIDE, given the extended timeframe for consideration and construction, estimated by RGB to take 2.5-3 years.

School committee members heard a brief presentation of the recommended options from consultant Steven Hughes of Robinson Green Beretta (RGB). Two options were highlighted by Buddemeyer as more likely possibilities: the previous frontrunner, "Option 2" which would build a new consolidated elementary to replace Hathaway and Elmhurst, and "Option 3" which would refurbish Hathaway and Melville to retain 2 out of the 3 neighborhood elementaries. In all options, additional high-priority work needs to be done at the middle school, high school, and administration building.

Buddemeyer indicated that the facilities committee had preferred Option 2 by simple majority vote, with Option 3 close behind. The RGB consultant stressed that the decision-making had been up to the group. "Mike's committee went through this independently," said Hughes. "They did not have the 'hired guns' telling them what to do."

One factor which made Option 3 more appealing last night, Hughes said, was a letter from the Navy indicating a willingness to discuss land bordering the Melville school. One of the issues with expanding Melville identified in the report is space constraints, since the building now occupies much of the available parcel.

The questions from the school committee reflected the reality that these proposals have been in front of them for a year now. (See coverage from January, 2009). But several members still found reasons to question the whole effort.

Angela Volpicelli asked "How would the facilities plan increase student achievement." Superintendent Susan Lusi patiently explained that while no correlation with test scores could be inferred, "if kids and teachers feel better about their environment, they bring a better attitude." Let me put this bluntly: kids learn better in buildings that don't suck. As the chair of the health and wellness subcommittee, I would think Ms. Volpicelli would be more familiar with the effects of indoor air quality, ergonomics, and appropriate task lighting.

Marilyn King's concern was about borrowing, and she used the Option 2 cost of $51M, tacked on $5M for debt service, and said "That's gonna be $56M" and that it would require "an 11% property tax increase."

"How did you get 11%?" said Carpender. I have the same question. Let's assume a 20-year term, and use her own number of $56M. That would require a yearly payback of $2.8M. According to numbers I have checked with the Town Finance department, each $50 increase for the average homeowner yields $610K. To pay the bond, the yearly apportionment for an average resident owning a $300K home would be $225. On a current tax bill of $3,255, that is a 7% increase.

I'm not saying Option 2 is the right choice, and I'm not saying that this is an insignificant amount; it's well worth having a discussion about. But come on — $18 bucks a month for new schools? Is that really so unreasonable?

Cynthia Perrotti asked a good question about transportation costs given reconfigured school locations.

Carpender reiterated the need to get into RIDE's pipeline and cautioned the committee against "paralysis by analysis" and that submitting the plan would not commit the town, since RIDE might well modify the recommendation, and there would be time to investigate costs fully during the year-long approval process. "There's a whole bunch of questions that need to be answered," said Carpender, "But we need to have adequate and efficient space for the students."

Lusi reminded the committee that only because of a temporary stay in fire-code compliance, due to sunset in January of 2011, had needed work even been deferred this year. "The lack of a decision is, in fact, a decision," said Lusi. "By not deciding, you are committing the community to the fire code work. It's not the case that we can keep students and teachers there with no investment."

Carpender said he planned to put the matter to a vote at next Tuesday's meeting.

Full disclosure: I am an appointed member of the Facilities Committee, and have been working on this plan for the last 18 months. So, yes, I have a perspective.