The Elephant in the Room (the EGRTC Blog)

Please subscribe to our emails to hear the latest communication from the East Greenwich Republican Town Committee.

Powell's Chaos, Our Cash

(March 13, 2025) As we shared with you last week, Town Councilor Zarrella proposed that the community pause or scrap its plans to build two new schools for financial reasons. At Monday’s Town Council meeting, Chair Mark Schwager and Vice Chair Mike Donegan expressed disagreement with Zarrella. As we had already noted about Zarrella’s rationale, Donegan explained that tariffs are not likely going to be a major contributing factor. And, as we suspected, Zarrella was concerned about the chaos surrounding the School Committee. He told EG News that “making the change to LeftField as project manager made him feel better,” and “having Alexis Meyer [back as school superintendent] does too.” 

We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but it is clear that if School Committee Chair Alyson Powell remains at the helm, our students and teachers could continue to suffer the consequences of her poor decisions. And if the composition of the School Construction Committee (SCC) is one in which both the Town Council and School Committee equally share decision-making power, Zarrella’s concerns may not be given the attention they deserve. He explained, “We have a lot of problems as a town, [and] I think the finances are important.”

That is why the EGRTC is calling for the Town Council to amend the makeup of the SCC to provide them with one extra member, either by adding one person from the community or town council or by removing one member of the school committee. It is clear that the delays caused by Powell’s work on the Building Committee have cost us PayGo financing. Furthermore, Powell insisted on using Colliers as a Project Manager, despite multiple warnings, and the town had to go back to the drawing board with LeftField. And renewing Ricca’s contract, despite community dissatisfaction, will cost us $92K in severance at a time when the state is forecasting that it will cut funding to East Greenwich by $800K. It is essential that, during this time of transition, the town council needs to take the lead in overseeing the work of the Construction Committee, and reducing school committee representation is key. 

Changes to the composition of the SCC were already anticipated by our town council when they admitted in May of 2024 that the community members who joined may choose not to remain at some point as the committee’s work will last for years. And, of course, school committee elections could change the makeup of the SCC. In fact, Powell withdrew Tim Munoz’s name from consideration prior to November 2024 citing the upcoming election as the reason. Interestingly, after the 2024 election, despite Munoz being re-elected, School Committee member Will Hangan was then put forward and now serves on the SCC rather than Munoz, all but confirming that Munoz would have been voted down by the Town Council. We expect it is his track record of combativeness and condescension with anyone who falls on the opposite side of his opinion that was the deciding factor. His initial nomination reflects another poor choice by Powell. 

If you agree with our opinion on this topic, please share your thoughts with the town council by emailing them. It is only when community members express their concerns on matters that impact them as parents, residents, or taxpayers that town officials will understand the community sentiment regarding the future of our school construction projects.

Democrat Housing Policy: An Ever-Moving Target

(March 13, 2025) Recently, RI House Bill 5801 was introduced by several Democrat representatives, and a hearing was held before the House Municipal Government & Housing Committee. This act would amend several aspects of the approval process relating to affordable housing, and we want to draw your attention to two alarming revisions.

For many years, the will of cities and towns across Rhode Island has been usurped in a race to reach the state-imposed mandated goal that 10% of our housing be affordable. We have been describing the unintended consequences when our own planning board has almost no power to deny another development on Division Road, for example, where we could lose a thriving farm business that provides wellness services to those in need through its equine assisted psychotherapy. Of course, this is only one of many examples of developers leveraging the comprehensive permit that allows almost guaranteed approval for high-density housing developments when at least 25% of units are designated as affordable.

This bill makes the 10% a moving target by stating that for-profit developers can still obtain a comprehensive permit to build more units totaling up to 1% of the total number of units in the town. In other words, every year after we reach our 10% goal, a developer could get approval to build ~55 high density units anywhere he can find land to purchase. Where a sewer connection already exists, he can build up to 12 units per acre, and where septic is necessary, he can develop up to 8 units per acre. While ~55 additional units a year that bypass local planning may sound reasonable compared to the 410+ unit development already underway on Division Road, the aggregate of all of this out-of-control development will forever change the character of our town. 

For non-profit developers where 100% of the units are affordable, they will continue to be able to obtain a comprehensive permit without any limitations even after we reach our 10% goal. Non-profits would be exempt from the 1% cap that applies to for-profits in 10%+ towns. This means that multiple non-profit developments could be built in East Greenwich each year. One example of a non-profit housing development is the 66-unit, four-story apartment building on Frenchtown Road known as Soria. There are several other non-profit developments throughout town such as Frenchtown Road Apartments, Shoreside Apartments, Marlborough Crossing, Bedford Farms, and Cottages on the Green. 

Furthermore, the bill states that municipalities cannot mandate more than one parking space per unit if the unit has two bedrooms or fewer, which could exacerbate the already tight parking situation downtown. And the bill allows for automatic approvals if our planning board misses a tight deadline—90 days for preliminary plans— which limits residents’ voices, turning our planning process into a rubber stamp. Finally, the bill states that towns cannot impose moratoriums or caps on residential development permits, so even if East Greenwich wanted to put a temporary hold on all new developments to ensure that we had the proper infrastructure to support this growth, we would be unable to do so.

We’re striving for 10%, but House Bill 5801 rigs the game against us. Where once farmland, nature, and peace prevailed, someday East Greenwich could resemble Warwick or any other town blighted by suburban sprawl. Lawmakers must reject this mess. To reach out to your elected officials who are supposed to represent your interests, we urge you to send an email before this legislation passes. 

Rep. Justine Caldwell: rep-caldwell@rilegislature.gov

Rep. Evan Shanley: rep-shanley@rilegislature.gov

EG Town Council: towncouncil@eastgreenwichri.com

Zarrella's School Construction Concerns Rooted in Town's Own Delays & Decisions

(March 4, 2025) On Sunday, EG News published a Letter to the Editor written by Town Councilor Michael Zarrella in which he called for East Greenwich to consider scrapping plans to build two new schools citing changes to the town’s financial stability, cost escalations, and a school structural deficit. You may remember that Zarrella originally voted no on the bond, although he promoted it saying, “I think this is good for the town. I still want to see people vote for this.” He agreed that the school building needed renovations and said, “passing the bond is more important than anything else.” 

Last February, the EGRTC warned that skyrocketing costs had become the new normal across the state due to elevated interest rates and multiple districts competing for the same contractors and laborers. Since then in North Providence, the district had to completely abandon the plans for one of their three new elementary schools due to a cost overage of $25M. In Cranston, construction costs rose to $40M beyond what was originally projected, so taxpayers approved another bond to keep the projects moving forward. Warwick had planned to build two new high schools, but there was recently a proposal to hold a special election to ask voters to revoke the bond that they had previously passed. That effort was voted down by the Warwick City Council, and construction plans are going ahead. LeftField, the same Project Manager which East Greenwich hired, has value engineered amenities at the two Warwick schools cutting the projected $40M cost overage to $23M. In Johnston, four school projects estimated at $215 million was slated to run $40M over budget. Town leaders decided to scale back their original plans to build a new early child center and elementary school and renovate their middle and high schools. They are currently on track to build one new elementary school and new high school. It is notable that in all of these districts, except for Warwick, the state reimbursement rates for school construction are higher meaning that, for most of the districts, a greater percentage of any cost overages will be covered by the state.

While we agree that project cost overruns are a significant concern in East Greenwich, one aspect of Councilor Zarrella’s argument deserves further scrutiny. Zarrella cited tariffs imposed by the federal government as a major factor impacting projected costs. He stated, “New tariffs on Canadian lumber, set to take effect in March, will further inflate costs – especially since nearly 50 percent of the wood used in U.S. construction is imported from Canada.” However, last Monday, a representative from LeftField explained to Zarrella that school buildings are made almost exclusively with other materials, making this argument a red herring (discussion begins at hour 1:10 in video). Furthermore, LeftField stated that steel vendors are likely to somewhat lower their costs temporarily to remain competitive in light of tariffs, and while there will likely be an impact, some of the increase could be absorbed by the project’s contingency budget. Nevertheless, we agree with Zarrella that “beyond tariffs, rising inflation and high interest rates continue to drive up costs. On top of that, we are competing with other communities still building schools from previously approved projects, increasing demand and further inflating material prices.” 

Last May, the Town Council selected two community members to join the Construction Committee. Two Republican candidates were interviewed by the Town Council for the positions, and despite being supremely qualified, neither was selected. Emily Hamel, one of the interviewees who was not chosen, is an experienced vertical construction estimator and project manager. She worked on Department of Defense construction projects, developing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and cost estimates for projects up to $500M. Most recently, Hamel managed all construction projects at a corporate campus encompassing 1,000,000 square feet of space. Earlier in her career, as a geologist, she managed complex environmental projects, including hazardous waste site cleanups. Hamel shared with us, “I warned that the bond might not be sufficient to cover everything the town planned to do. Even if they managed to complete the core and shell of the buildings, I cautioned that they might struggle to pay for classroom furniture, technology, and other essential equipment. Those elements shape how students and teachers experience the building. I felt that the interview panel lacked a strategic vision and only focused on what was in front of them at the moment. They didn’t seem well prepared to consider the long-term success of the project or how budget constraints would impact the final outcome. My impression was that the panel didn’t take me or my concerns seriously.” 

Timing has played a key factor in determining the tax impacts on East Greenwich residents. Zarrella explained, “The town will no longer receive PAYGO [pay as you go] funding to offset tax increases for residents because the project was not approved in time. Without this advance payment, taxpayers will face much higher costs than initially anticipated. PAYGO funds were intended to ease the financial burden, and without them, residents will bear a greater tax load.” Actually, the tax burden with PayGo would have been the same overall, but the initial spike felt by taxpayers in 2027 would have been eased if PayGo had been granted because it would have smoothed the tax increases over time. Even with PayGo, in 2023 Town Manager Andy Nota estimated that, for a house assessed at $750K, taxes would jump $1888 in 2027. Of course, that was before real estate re-assessments. Our Town Council knows that, without PayGo, the 2027 jump will be even higher. 

In March 2023, the EGRTC warned that unnecessary delays in the Building Subcommittee coming up with a plan for school construction could be a problem. Republican Town Council candidate Peter Rodgers explained in his October 2024 LTE, “Had the subcommittee set the 2022 election as its goal for seeking community support when they began in 2017, it likely could have achieved its aim even with the disruption caused by the pandemic.” Furthermore, no Building Subcommittee meetings were held between mid-September 2022 and mid-January 2023, which coincided with campaign season, when voters would have been highly engaged. That would have been an excellent time to hold community forums to garner residents’ feedback, but instead the forums were pushed to spring of 2023. 

It is possible, though not stated directly by Mr. Zarrella, that the chaos surrounding our School Committee’s leadership is a compounding factor in his concerns. We await more information about what options our community has in light of what RIDE will allow us to modify or eliminate if we wish to move ahead with school construction plans. And we encourage residents to stay closely engaged and make their views known in the coming weeks and months.  

Faith Hill Farm & The Law of Unintended Consequences

(February 2, 2025) On January 15th, a developer came before EG Planning Board to discuss plans for building “Ridgeline Estates,” located at 2000 Division Road, just a short distance from the 418-unit development that was recently given the go ahead by the State Superior Court. Ridgeline Estates would include 39 condominiums and 4 houses on 31-acres. Douglas DiSimone, of DiSimone Development, is availing himself of the fast-track through the local approval process by way of a Comprehensive Permit which requires that he designate 25% of the units as affordable. The slew of affordable housing laws passed over the last few years have been successful in bringing more affordable units to East Greenwich, but the costs to our community could be substantial and irreversible.

One example is the potential injury to a local business and the important wellness services they offer. Ridgeline Estates is being proposed adjacent to Faith Hill Farm, a family-owned business which boards horses, provides riding lessons, and offers equine-assisted psychotherapy for young people and adults in hospice, and those with behavioral problems, PTSD, and disabilities. According to their website, Pam Maloof and her staff “lead individuals toward emotional wellbeing by creating purposeful connections with horses.” At the Planning Board meeting, Maloof said she is concerned that the loud blasting that will occur with the construction could cause a safety risk to riders such that she would no longer be able to operate during the workday. Of course, this would severely curtail the business activities of Faith Hill Farm.

A few days ago, Maloof started a petition to raise awareness about the potential harms to her livelihood and the loss of essential mental health services, and already it has garnered more than 1100 signatures. In part, it states, “Our greatest hope is that this project will not be approved. However, should the development be approved without stringent conditions and accommodations, it threatens to jeopardize the welfare and safety of our staff, clients, horses, and the tranquility our farm provides for the most vulnerable of Rhode Island residents. Harmfully, the proposed construction project of neighboring Ridgeline Estates stands to PUT HUMAN LIVES AT RISK as staff and clients care for and handle 1,000-pound flight animals who by nature react to unexpected noise, vibrations and activity. This includes, but is not limited to, the scope of development works such as demolition, excavation, and blasting of the vast rock and boulder landscape. Without a prefrontal cortex, the equine brain instantly sends signals to the motor control area with the command to run when faced with unexpected sound or movement. As flight animals, this brain function and physical response is involuntary to horses. Furthermore, as herd animals, one equine’s immediate reaction to unexpected noise will often create a domino effect, thus exposing staff and clients, property, and the horses themselves to a great deal of danger.”

In response to the local news piece about the Planning Board meeting, Town Councilor Renu Englehart commented on social media that the answer to preventing overdevelopment in East Greenwich is for residents to personally purchase land that comes up for sale. She wrote, “If people do not want large tracts of property to be developed, then a plan with funding is needed to approach landowners. Unfortunately, the town cannot afford to offer the same terms as real estate developers. The town will always be outbid.” 

The EGRTC believes that much could have been done by our Town Council when the affordable housing laws were being proposed. For example, they could have advocated at the state level for better local control and written a resolution to that effect as explained by Republican candidates for Town Council in 2022. They could have joined RI Senator Gordon Rogers’ coalition of local municipalities pushing back against state overreach. One aspect of Rogers’ plan was to designate areas where affordable housing may best be situated, nearest to shopping, public transportation, and employment opportunities. This strategy was echoed by the East Greenwich Affordable Housing Commission at its June annual report before our Town Council. According to EG News, Former Commission Chair Susan Aitcheson “urged the town to consider including underutilized sites for potential high-density housing development in the town’s next Comprehensive Plan, which is to be updated over the next couple of years. Specifically, she mentioned the former Stanley Bostitch factory site on South County Trail or Frenchtown Road west of Post Road, as examples of the types of land that could be renovated. These locations are already close to infrastructure, offering convenience for residential buildings.”

In the same way that our recent warning about the ill-effects of banning gas-powered leaf blowers explained that this local ordinance would harm business and drive prices up with little help to the environment, approving this second development on Division Road would bring a host of unintended consequences, not least of which is the loss of a local business and the services it provides. One can imagine that in just one or two generations, local historians will tell school children how East Greenwich used to have farms where people could commune with nature and animals. 

Concerned residents should direct emails to our state legislators and town council:

Rep. Justine Caldwell: rep-caldwell@rilegislature.gov

Sen. Bridget Valverde: sen-valverde@rilegislature.gov

EG Town Council: towncouncil@eastgreenwichri.com

Last Year's News

(January 22, 2025) For more than a year, neighbors in the vicinity of the proposed Division Road 410-unit development have been eagerly waiting to find out whether the project will be able to go ahead, which many oppose due to concerns about increased traffic, pedestrian safety, impacts on local wildlife, noise, overcrowded schools, and the overall quality of life in the community. You may remember that the state took away our Planning Board’s ability to deny such a development when your state reps. passed several housing laws that allowed for a Comprehensive Permit enabling builders to create high density developments as long as they designate 25% as affordable. Since early in 2024 when the Town appealed the decision, the EGRTC has been checking on the status of the appeal, and last Friday we learned that on October 28, 2024, the State Superior Court made a “Consent Judgement” in which they denied our town’s request to stop the development from going forward. 

Next, we reached out to Town Manager Andy Nota to find out how the development might proceed, and he shared some details with us as described below. At tonight’s Legislative Forum, EG News editor Elizabeth McNamara announced that the court has denied our appeal and that she will be publishing a piece about it tomorrow. It’s curious that the Town did not make the public aware in any meaningful way when the decision was made back in October, especially right before the election. And it’s equally surprising that EG News is only now covering it, coincidentally after the EGRTC began raising awareness about it. While we cannot say for certain why this information was not widely shared, it’s a situation that demands greater transparency and accountability from both the Town and our local media.

Nota explained that the developer will still be allowed to build 410 units, but that 50% of them will be restricted to adults aged 55 and older, and the plan will continue to include 25% affordable units. While this plan could slow the inevitable future overcrowding in our schools, the same high-density nature of the development will still exist. According to Nota, “The applicant is now allowed to move into the Preliminary stage of review.  The developer would next reconfigure their plans to meet the court order and engineer the proposed infrastructure– roadways, sewer, water, drainage. Once they complete their engineering process, they would submit to the Town (Planning Board) for formal review which includes another Public Hearing. The developer, under this 410-unit plan, is bound to meet the conditions outlined by the court. If they fail to do so, it could be grounds for denial at the Preliminary Plan stage. The Planning Board retains a limited ability to deny the project, primarily based on technical compliance (e.g., inadequate drainage systems or noncompliance with public safety standards). The Town would encourage the developer to appear before the Planning Board under a pre-application review (no decision or timeline) to re-introduce the project to the Town. This informal review allows the Town to clarify expectations and gives the developer an opportunity to address concerns proactively, fostering transparency and collaboration.”  

Nota continued, “All that being said, much will likely depend on whether the Division Road Neighborhood, LLC or some other developer is the one to proceed and seek to advance this project. What I mean by that is there are unknowns, some of which may include, 1) when will the project be advanced to preliminary review by the Planning Board, 2) what potential impacts on the buildout timeline may occur, 3) what will be the project phasing schedule, 4) how could economic influences impact the project, 5) will a future developer choose to pivot and abandon this plan and consent judgement and start all over in proposing more or less likely– less density using the legislative support available to them, 6) will there be added development in the surrounding area, 6) as well as other similar unknowns.”  

Nota explained that the Town will know about the future of the project once they learn “the intent of the existing developer or… of a sale at some point in the future.” He stated, “I believe we all understand that the societal prioritization of housing development comes with many localized impacts and ramifications, some of which are generally good and supportive of the need for added housing stock of varying types in support of our Town and State residents in need, while others that influence long established local zoning and planning can present numerous challenges. The unknown impacts that we can only surmise today represent legitimate concerns of each municipality at this early stage in this statewide initiative. The level of service expansion and capacity (fiscally and otherwise) of each community to address these needs in future years represent questions that we don’t yet have answers.”

What Nota described is the powerlessness of East Greenwich residents to have the final say in how much development takes place in our community and at what pace. But how did we get here? At the Legislative Forum, Rep. Shanley explained that cities and towns were in “consensus” in their support of the housing laws that were passed over the last four years. The RI League of Cities and Towns acts as an advocacy group on behalf of municipalities and works to advise our General Assembly about how their legislative decisions impact their constituents. Shanley’s assessment that there was a lack of pushback from towns including East Greenwich indicates to us that, before these laws were passed, our town council could have done more to advocate for better local control. 

A member of the public at the Legislative Forum accused towns who wish to retain local control as suffering from NIMBYism. The claim that East Greenwich residents are not in favor of housing being built that is more affordable is unfair and causes some to be hesitant to speak out. In fact, what concerns many is the high density nature of these developments without any ability to plan for the infrastructure needed to support this growth. We encourage you to reach out to your legislators who have the power to amend these laws because if we stay silent, every farm and parcel of land will surely be developed and our town will be irrevocably changed. Both Senator Valverde and Rep. Shanley stated that they are open to feedback from their constituents about this topic, and they welcome your emails and calls. Rep. Justine Caldwell declined to participate in this forum. 

Update: On January 23, EG News published a piece on this topic which states that the Town "signed the settlement in October but it was not made public until last week. According to officials, the failure to announce the settlement was an oversight." 

The Case of the Missing State Rep.

(January 16, 2025) Whose priorities will your elected representatives be focusing on in this legislative session? An upcoming Legislative Forum, hosted by EG News, has been advertised as a chance for voters to “hear from both legislators about their plans and priorities for the 2025 session.” 

At this January 22nd event, Rep. Evan Shanley and Sen. Bridget Valverde will be participating, but Rep. Justine Caldwell has declined, which was not stated in the EG News piece but which we learned by inquiring. Also, Caldwell “did not respond to multiple requests for comment by EG News” for a 2023 article entitled General Assembly Roundup. Why won’t our representative engage with her constituents? Perhaps she knows that voters are not happy about her broken promise made at the 2022 Candidate Forum in which she vowed to restore local control to our planning and zoning decisions and prevent state overreach and developer abuse leading to out-of-control development. Since making that promise, she has voted to approve several housing laws that have done the opposite. Local zoning and planning laws are there for a reason, to allow East Greenwich to grow at a responsible rate ensuring that we have suitable infrastructure to support that growth. The housing laws that Caldwell approved actually prevent EG from considering whether we have enough classrooms and teachers for incoming students, whether we wish to have hundreds of additional cars on our rural roads, and whether the quality of life for current residents is negatively affected.

Although we are pleased to see Valverde’s participation in the upcoming forum, she also voted to approve the same housing laws. Yet she made similar promises at the 2022 Forum in which she stated that she would work to prevent state overreach of our local zoning and planning if it is the will of her constituents. Ultimately, Valverde voted to approve all the housing laws that take local control away. It is no coincidence that residents who live close to the proposed 410+ unit development on Division Road felt compelled to hire their own lawyer to represent them in this matter. We currently await the state superior court’s decision on the town’s appeal of the developer’s application and will keep you informed about this topic. Meanwhile, other developments in town are in the works turning farmland into condos. 

It should be noted that Valverde and Caldwell ran unopposed in 2024, rewarding these legislators for their broken promises. When there is a lack of balance in our local and state offices, there is no one to offer another perspective, and some politicians are likely to care less about “the consent of the governed” and focus more on their own priorities. 

The Legislative Forum will be taking place at Cole Middle School on January 22nd, from 6:30 to 7:30 PM. Constituents are asked to register to attend and let them know in advance what you want to hear about. The EGRTC is concerned that perhaps our reps will not be taking live questions from the public but will be choosing from preapproved topics. We had the same concerns when EG News hosted a 2023 community forum with school and town officials about the school bond referendum where EG News delivered preselected questions to members of the panel. Our elected officials should not be buffered but rather should be challenged by journalists and residents to uphold their promises and represent your best interests and priorities.

And it is extremely important that, in 2026, Republicans and Unaffiliated candidates step forward to give voters a choice. If you would like to run for local or state office, please reach out our Vice Chair of Candidate Development, Peter Carney at pcarney1433@gmail.com. If you cannot run but wish to help us in our candidate search, please join our recruitment committee by completing this form.

Read our Letter to the Editor in The Pendulum

(December 9, 2024) Since Town Councilor Caryn Corenthal proposed a local ordinance to ban gas-powered leaf blowers in East Greenwich, more than 100 people have responded on our Facebook page and EG News’ Facebook page that they are not in favor of this plan. And several of you emailed us to let us know you do not agree with this proposal. 

Notably, Peter Carney opined online: “Did Councilor Corenthal share the importance of this issue just a short time ago during campaign season? Did she share that this would be a focus for her while she knocked on doors this fall as a candidate? She certainly didn’t mention it during the candidate forum in October 2024. Is that because it’s terribly unpopular and she decided to push the issue once safely re-elected? Reminds me of the school committee mothballing the school construction conversations in summer 2022, with an $80-$100m quote at the time, then safely getting re-elected, and resuming meetings at a $120m price tag. Now we’re at $150m+ likely cost.”

The Pendulum published our Letter to the Editor, and in response, Ms. Corenthal posted an LTE in EG News stating, “Given the overwhelming evidence of harm they cause and the state’s ongoing deliberations on this issue, it’s only prudent for us to address it locally. While I believe in compromise and am committed to the will of the residents, I also feel an obligation to act when community members take the time to express their concerns about the noise and pollution caused by these machines.” You may express your concerns by reaching out to our Town Council by email.

Proposal to Ban Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Could Face Blowback

Peter Rodgers's Letter to the Editor

Experience Matters on The Town Council

(October 18, 2024) As a trained and experienced project manager and engineer, I am seeking to supplement the Town Council’s skill set and help navigate the progress of the $150 million school construction bond. My recommendations are meant to augment the good work that is already happening by our elected officials, staff, and especially community members who have volunteered their time to this initiative. There are many elements that determine the success of a project, one of the most important being stakeholder buy in, and that is where I would like to focus at the moment. 

Without community support, projects are likely to be delayed, have cost overruns, and have quality control issues. According to the Project Management Institute, “Research and previous experience have shown that if a project manager were to run all of the tools and techniques in the PMBOK® Guide [which provides project managers with the fundamental practices needed to achieve organizational results and excellence] on a project without the use of the artful ‘soft’ skills of general management, their chances of success in delivering their project scope on time, on budget, and as per the desired quality standards are slim.” In the context of our School Bond, these soft skills include seeking and responding to community feedback on a broad scale. Although it is the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) who is charged with a portion of this task, the stakeholder engagement plan should primarily be guided by our elected leaders, especially since this process starts before an OPM is selected. I believe our Town Council and School Committee would have had broader community support and fewer objections with better stakeholder buy in through the implementation of community surveys, making School Construction Committee meetings more accessible, listening more carefully to the concerns of their constituents, and timing the bond with the greatest opportunities for community engagement. 

In the past, the School Committee has done an admirable job of garnering feedback from the residents as a means of guiding their decisions. They used online surveys to ask about the public’s preferences regarding school start times, full return to school during COVID, the academic calendar, full-day kindergarten, and a superintendent search. And our Town Council sent out helpful Community Services surveys about dog parks, pickleball courts, the natural hazards mitigation plan, and the expansion of Swift Community Center. Families were notified about the surveys through email outreach and social media. However, for the School Bond, this method of garnering a wide sample of residents’ responses was not utilized, thus our elected leaders lacked vital information needed to understand the extent of the community’s support for their proposal (or lack thereof). On a positive note, our Town Manager Andy Nota has made strides toward community engagement with the creation of the Engage East Greenwich website where residents may share their feedback about a wide range of town initiatives. I would like to see more people make use of this resource, and perhaps highlighting this website in more town-wide communications would achieve this. When the website was seeking responses from residents about which schools they would prioritize in the school bond, fewer than 100 people participated, and more people selected the high school as their main concern.

Integral to seeking stakeholder buy in is taking the feedback from the community and using it to guide the project going forward. Holding the 2023 community forums was a positive step, however some community members felt that the purpose of the exercise was to inform the public about a decision that had already been made. In fact, the subcommittee vote to decommission Eldredge took place before any forums were held. Also, some residents shared their preference that most of the bond be used to renovate the high school.  Many families instead choose to spend tens of thousands more each year to send their children to private schools when they reach high school, some of whom cite the deteriorating facilities as a contributing factor to their decision. In March 2023, EG News quoted me when I echoed community concerns: “ ‘I think the high school is the flagship educational facility of the town….It’s not significantly younger than any of the schools that are being discussed.’ [I] questioned if waiting to renovate the high school at a later date would result in more renovation headaches for the town, not dissimilar to what is being discussed about Eldredge.” Recently, EG News reported that residents are worried that, due to rising construction costs and inflation, the high school may not get the renovations that were anticipated by voters when the bond was approved. 

In addition, at the community forums and in online LTEs, our elected leaders heard from many in the community that they were not in favor of hiring Colliers International (formerly Strategic Building Solutions) for this project as they also managed the Cole Middle School project. Readers may recall that the Cole project led to a five-year lawsuit by homeowners in the Sarah’s Trace neighborhood against the town over damage to their homes. I support the Town Council’s decision to change the OPM, but by listening better to the early concerns of the community, they could have avoided having to change the OPM at this late stage in the process. 

Successful project managers know that stakeholder engagement also involves making it easy for them to participate. School Building Subcommittee meetings were often held on weekday mornings, making it difficult for most people, including students and teachers, to attend. When residents took time off from work to participate, they joined a small, overcrowded conference room. I applaud that some Town Councilors advocated for a change of time and venue, which resulted in much higher attendance from the public. However, this should have been the plan from the beginning. In addition, the subcommittee didn’t meet at all during the months of October, November, or December of 2022, delaying the project’s progress during the election season when many residents naturally would have been more highly engaged. 

Finally, to include more community members in the bond decision, I believe that the Town should have strived for a more timely bond vote by including it in the 2022 midterm election when 58.1 percent of voters participated, rather than holding it in 2023 in which only 20.2 percent of residents voted. Town officials often cite the bond vote as having the support of 69.3 percent of voters, but with only a small portion of constituents voicing their preference, this number is somewhat misleading. In fact, only about 14 percent of the town residents actively supported the bond with their vote. Another key project manager skill is setting long-term goals, including benchmarks along the way. Had the subcommittee set the 2022 election as its goal for seeking community support when they began in 2017, it likely could have achieved its aim even with the disruption caused by the pandemic. 

If you agree that experience matters, I hope you will consider my experience when you cast your vote for Town Council. I was a Submarine Officer for over 21 years at duty stations in seven states and finished my military career as Deputy Commander of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport. During my service, I led my crew during a $250 million submarine refueling overhaul which was the first ever to finish on time and $14 million under budget. As a skilled program manager, I have years of experience leading large teams of engineers, technicians, and subcontractors. Furthermore, I have extensive understanding of fiscal accountability and earned two graduate degrees in Leadership & Management and Government Policy. I taught postgraduate students from all over the world at the National Defense University in D.C. about leadership and organizational culture. I have attended almost every Town Council meeting for more than two years and have a keen grasp on the issues facing our town. 

I look forward to complementing the work and expertise that is currently on the Council and bringing my extensive training to bear on future bond decisions which will impact every taxpayer. Thank you.

Schuyler Weiss: A Vision For Restoring Our Schools

(October 29, 2024) Following the publication of my Letters to the Editor, which aimed to raise awareness of the declining state of our schools and of the data behind the standardized testing and financial decline, we’ve have unfortunately witnessed further objective regression in our schools. The district’s average SAT has fallen another 14 points to 1123* – 10 points more than the 4 point national decline, the East Greenwich Public School system has fallen to third in Rhode Island in the widely used Niche.com public school ranking, now sitting behind Barrington (1) and North Kingstown (2), and the school construction is now expected to be ~$25m more expensive than originally projected. While these trends are concerning, I’m convinced we can reverse course and restore our schools to excellence. Through extensive research and conversations with students, parents, educators, and experts, I’ve identified three critical initiatives that can help our schools regain positive momentum and better serve every child’s educational journey.

Investing in Educational Excellence

The cornerstone of any great school system is its teachers. Throughout my career, I’ve observed that success flows from attracting and retaining exceptional talent. Unfortunately, East Greenwich currently ranks only 10th in Rhode Island for teacher compensation according to Niche’s “Best 25 School Districts to Teach For” (Patch.com, 2022). With neighboring districts offering salaries up to 15 percent higher on average, we risk losing our best educators and struggling to attract new talent amid a national teacher shortage. Our current teachers are dedicated professionals who deserve compensation that reflects their value and expertise. A competitive compensation package isn’t just about attracting and retaining the best talent – it’s about sending a clear message that East Greenwich prioritizes educational excellence. While I would note that the figures do not account for the average teacher step of the various districts; should that be the driver, then there remains cause for concern, albeit of a different nature.

Embracing Transparency and Community Engagement

In conversations with hundreds of residents, I’ve discovered a concerning pattern: many are unaware or have not been informed of the challenges facing our schools. Progress requires honest acknowledgment of both our strengths and weaknesses. As a School Committee member, I would look to implement a regular transparency report detailing the key metrics and developments – both positive and negative – affecting our schools. Additionally, I would propose monthly community forums, absent an SC quorum, in one of our many great local coffee shops, creating an informal setting where residents can openly share feedback and suggestions. This increased transparency will foster accountability and unite our community in addressing our challenges while celebrating our successes.

Building Momentum Behind our Culture

Building an inspiring culture requires that all voices are heard and that all stakeholders are moving in the right direction. In reviewing the results of RIDE’s Surveyworks Spring 2024 Survey, it is clear that all of our stakeholders – students, parents, teachers, support staff – have a clear message: there is a lot of work to be done.

• 26 percent of our students in grades 6 to 12 gave a favorable rating for how invested and attentive they are in school. The rating has remained roughly the same, hovering between 23 percent and 28 percent between 2017 and 2024.
  
  

• 23 percent of our teachers and 38 percent of our support staff gave a favorable rating for the perception of the adequacy of the school’s resources. Historical figures are not available for this figure for teachers. Only three years of data is available for support staff, which detailed an increase from 24 percent in 2023.
  
  

• 28 percent of families gave a favorable rating on the degree to which families become involved with and interact with their child’s school. Though this rating dropped significantly in 2021 (13 percent) and 2022 (17 percent), it has largely remained around 27 percent since 2019. 

When we dive deeper into the data, we find clear nuances and correlations across respondent types (primary or secondary) and their respective schools. For example, survey results from Cole and Frenchtown teachers are far worse overall than those from Meadowbrook or Eldredge teachers. To build a positive and inclusive educational culture in East Greenwich, we need to identify the major pain points within the survey results and then work together to determine their root causes. We can then create tailored plans to address each opportunity for improvement, prioritizing the areas of greatest concern. Many of these plans would not require any financial investment – we’d just need to come together to do the work.

Moving Forward

As I’ve become more deeply involved in East Greenwich schools, the need for change has become increasingly apparent. While we have dedicated individuals contributing their time and expertise, persistent challenges suggest we need a fresh approach. A community member recently wrote to me in private, “We are now subsidizing a deteriorating school system that rests on its withering laurels.” While stark, there is some objective truth to this assessment.

Yet I remain optimistic. East Greenwich possesses all the essential elements for success: bright students, engaged parents, strong per-pupil funding, and a proud educational legacy. What’s needed now is effective leadership to coordinate these advantages into sustained excellence. I don’t present myself as a singular solution – no individual can solve these challenges alone. Rather, I offer my perspective and skills to complement the existing School Committee and catalyze positive change. Our students are among the nation’s most promising, and it would be an honor to help them achieve their full potential.

*Per RIDE. Due to changes in the test design of the SAT in 2023-24, comparisons to previous scores should be interpreted with caution.

Schuyler Weiss's Letter to the Editor

Constitutional Convention Question on November Ballot

(September 20, 2024) This November, Question #1 on the ballot will ask voters to decide whether they would like Rhode Island to hold a Constitutional Convention. 

How would a Constitutional Convention Work?

According to our State Constitution, every ten years voters must be asked whether to convene a Constitutional Convention. The last time Rhode Islanders approved a Convention was in 1984. If passed, the state legislators will vote whether to select 75 Convention delegates, one for each House District. Voters will be asked to approve the delegates in a special election in 2025. 

According to the State of RI Report of the Bipartisan Preparatory Commission for a Constitutional Convention, “If the people approve the question of whether to hold a convention, the General Assembly… would establish the procedures related to the convention, including whether delegates will be selected on a partisan or nonpartisan basis, the calendar and procedures for any election(s), the qualification of delegates, any appropriation of funds, and the time and place that the convention would first convene.”

Then the elected delegates would meet, debate, and approve a set of amendments to the state constitution to recommend to voters. The recommended amendments would be put on a ballot for voters’ final approval, perhaps in the next scheduled statewide election in 2026. 

Why haven’t voters approved of a Constitutional Convention since 1984?

One of the reasons voters have rejected a convention for the past 40 years is cost. The 1984 Convention cost taxpayers approximately $891K. The report explains that, if passed this November, voters should expect a cost of “$2.6M to $4.8M, with a midpoint of $3.7M.” Furthermore, some progressives argue that having a Convention could expose RI to outside influence. Also, the report states that another reason voters have rejected a Convention is the “lack of political accountability of delegates who do not face re-election.” 

What are some possible benefits of voting to approve of a Convention?

According to the report, “It is important to note that once a Convention is called, the delegates will determine their own agenda. The Convention will not be required to address issues that may have been discussed during the Commission’s hearings.” Some issues that conservatives favor include term limits for elected officials and the addition of an Inspector General, which some argued would have added transparency and accountability to the Washington Bridge fiasco. Furthermore, school choice and expanded access to public records could be included on the ballot. 

What is a possible negative outcome of approving a Convention?

One item that we are not in favor that will likely be included is Same Day Voter Registration (SDR). According to the America First Policy Institute, “A major concern with SDR is the elimination of comprehensive voter identification verification. Because SDR affords election officials limited time to check voter eligibility, the risk of accepting votes from ineligible voters increases greatly. Without the time necessary to check if a voter actually lives within the district in which that person is voting, there is no way to be certain that fraudulent votes are not being cast. Once elections are certified, which, at most, happens only a few weeks after the election, votes cannot be discarded or marked as fraudulent.” 

Construction Committee Controversies

(September 6, 2024) EG News has published its recent article about last week’s School Construction Meeting, which offers many helpful details. However, the EGRTC would like to add some missing information and context.

This meeting was very well-attended, thanks to it taking place in the evening when working people can participate. However, the vast majority of these meetings have been scheduled during the day at the request its members. We believe, and have requested multiple times, that these gatherings should happen when it is convenient for the stakeholders involved- taxpayers, parents, students, and teachers.

When the Committee announced two upcoming “Listening Sessions,” some abutters raised concerns about issues of privacy, potential damage to their homes, traffic, and the ability to communicate with the Committee. In fact, one neighbor asked whether their feedback would actually be taken on board. Perhaps she agrees with our assessment of the Community Forums held in 2023 where it seemed the point of the exercise was to disseminate, rather than gather information. In response, Town Manager Andy Nota pushed back in a critical tone stating that the Committee has been meeting for three years with many opportunities to make one’s views known. This is a common response amongst members of the Committee when a member of the public challenges the Committee’s process. In our opinion, it is not constructive to shame a member of the public who is honestly concerned about their home and quality of life being negatively affected by town projects, and the Committee and Town Manager should welcome community feedback.

Town Council Vice President, Mike Donegan, stated that the concerns of abutters are “front and center” of every decision the Committee makes. However, he and other members knew of residents’ worries about the choice of Colliers as the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), and both the Committee and Council voted to approve of its selection. Only after the EGRTC published our August 2nd blog post did the Council reverse its decision, citing not community concerns about damage to their homes, but financial aspects of the contract.

We were pleased to witness the new OPM LeftField take a more public-facing approach at this meeting, as compared with Colliers. LeftField representative Chris Spiegel took steps to interact with community members, reassure them by promising the use of pre-construction surveys, and seek questions after each step of his presentation. It is unfortunate that, perhaps due to the change in OPM, the projects will have to be slowed down to ensure the surveying and design are optimized before pushing for construction, costing taxpayers more than $400K for every month of delay. Republican Town Council candidate Kurt Hamel asked Speigel what risks the project currently faces, although Speigel did not offer any. This is a concern as Hamel and Republican Peter Rodgers are the only engineers and project managers running in the upcoming election, and they are aware that identifying and mitigating risks is an essential part of managing large-scale building projects. Republican School Committee candidate Schuyler Weiss inquired about financial metrics regarding work completed to date but was disappointed that they were not readily available to the public. Sky was assured that these figures will be available at future meetings and believes that transparency on costs and progress is critical on this initiative.

Although the GOP candidates’ comments and questions were not mentioned by EG News, the editor did include a lengthy acknowledgement about School Committee member Tim Munoz’s role on the Construction Committee: “One person in the audience and not sitting with committee members Thursday evening was School Committee member Tim Munoz. He was elected by the School Committee to replace Kevin Murphy on the SCC because Murphy is not running for reelection, but Munoz’s appointment needs to be confirmed by the Town Council. That has not happened despite the council having met twice since Munoz was selected…”

The EGRTC will keep you informed about upcoming meetings of the Construction Committee as they are made public.

Town Council Reverses Decision about School Construction Project Manager

(August 2, 2024) Since our last communication with you about the Town awarding the $150M school construction Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) contract to Colliers, the Town Manager Andy Nota recommended that the Town Council rescind their offer of the contract and award it to Left Field LLC, and the Council voted to follow his recommendations. At Monday’s Town Council meeting, Nota stated that he felt it was not “in the Town’s best interest” to advance the contract with Colliers. You may remember that on July 19, the EGRTC wrote that we had concerns about the choice of Colliers as they were the OPM for the 2009-2011 Cole Middle School project which resulted in a five-year lawsuit against the town by homeowners in the adjacent Sarah's Trace development who suffered structural damage costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs to each home. 

Mr. Nota stated that in his exchanges with Colliers, “professional services involving communication and accessibility had suffered in recent months, and that “a new perspective will better serve the Town during the subsequent Stages of construction.” He explained that the School Construction Committee, which advises the Town Council, had recommended Colliers due to its original price differential of $1M compared with Left Field LLC. However, since the contract was awarded to Colliers, Nota explained that further discussions with both firms around the cost of OPM services revealed that the cost difference between them would be similar. In addition to his written remarks, Nota elaborated verbally that, with Colliers, a “heightened level of familiarity was not necessarily a good thing.” Perhaps the School Committee’s insistence on working with Colliers, despite community apprehensions about its history on the Cole project, colored their perspective about whether to make them the OPM again.

The EGRTC is not aware of whether community concerns played a role in this reversal, but we are relieved that the decision was made to not move forward with this firm. We reiterate our recommendations to the Council to work closely with neighbors whose homes abut Frenchtown and Hanaford as mistakes made in the past could influence current projects if we are not careful. As a reminder, our Republican Town Council candidates, Peter Rodgers and Kurt Hamel, are the only candidates who have engineering and project management training and experience. We believe these skills will serve our community well in helping to ensure that our $150M bond money is responsibly managed. 

Town Council Chooses Colliers- Despite a Difficult Legacy

(July 19, 2024) The EGRTC would like to bring you up to date about the progress of the $150M School Construction Bond. In June, the East Greenwich Town Council voted to approve Strategic Building Solutions, “doing business as Colliers,” to be the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM). This means that Colliers will oversee all aspects of the project including the subcontractors. While we understand that the Construction Committee carefully weighed many factors in advising our Councilors, we have reservations about this decision and would like to offer another perspective. 

You may remember that Colliers also managed the 2009-2011 Cole Middle School project which resulted in a five-year lawsuit against the town by homeowners in the adjacent Sarah's Trace development who suffered structural damage costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs to each home. As a result, the Town was found guilty of nuisance and paid $240K to three families for loss of use and enjoyment of their homes and property. Unfortunately, this compensation did not fully cover the cost to repair all of the damage. 

These next construction projects will involve two schools, Hanaford and Frenchtown Elementary, that will require the use vibratory rollers and other heavy construction machinery. We are aware that there are new concerns of abutters whose homes are even closer to the proposed construction than the Sarah’s Trace homes are to Cole. Nearby residents are worried that, if the Town won’t implement preconstruction surveys, that they will be left with the bill for ordering these expensive tests on their own. Colliers representative Derek Osterman, who spoke at the Community Forum last October, stated that there is no plan to analyze and monitor damage to homes near the schools through preconstruction surveys (at minute 15:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XrK63alCeo). Unfortunately, this did not reassure residents that enough will be done to prevent similar damage from occurring in the future. 

The School Committee was cognizant of community members’ lingering concerns, as, according to EG News, “Four residents of Sarah’s Trace and former School Committee Chair Jean Ann Guliano [and former School Committee member Susan Records] addressed the School Committee in 2022, saying fraud was the reason they were never compensated for damage done to their homes during the construction.” Since the alleged fraud by those hired by Colliers and involved in the damage was committed against the Town, the signatory to the contract, rather than the homeowners, it was the Town’s obligation to seek compensation from Colliers. To date, they have failed to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Lamendola, one of the homeowners who suffered damage, made a public presentation to the community last fall describing what happened to the homeowners in an effort to raise awareness and to prevent similar imminent problems. He invited Town Councilors, School Committee members, and the School Superintendent, some of whom attended. 

Given this difficult history, the legacy of which continues to this day, we believe that the decision to hire Colliers as the OPM was likely unnecessary. From our perspective, our elected leaders should have been sensitive to the experience of residents whose homes were damaged and avoided choosing the same contractor who was involved with the Cole project. Now that the choice has been made, however, we encourage our Town Council to maintain an open dialogue with families whose houses neighbor future construction sites and provide many opportunities for their input. We support clear communication with residents about construction monitoring efforts and what proactive measures the Town will implement to mitigate negative effects on abutting properties. Furthermore, we’d like to see the Town consider the quality-of-life impacts to neighbors during construction.

Finally, our Republican Town Council candidates, Kurt Hamel and Peter Rodgers, are the only candidates with engineering and project management training and experience, which will be essential to responsibly manage your investment in the $150M school construction bond. They are committed to working together with Council members, Construction Committee members, and the community to ensure that there is a balanced dialogue throughout this project. 

If you see the need for balance in East Greenwich, we would like to encourage you to give of your time, talents, or treasure. To get involved, go to https://www.egrtc.org/support. This campaign season, don’t say, “I should have." Say, “I did.”

Important School Construction Updates

(May 31, 2024) This week, RIDE approved the Stage 2 application for school construction/renovation projects for East Greenwich Schools in the amount of $172,092,790. We reached out to RIDE’s Finance Officer, William Trimble, with the following questions:

What were the approximate requests/approvals for funding?

·      $56M for new Frenchtown Elementary

·      $5M for renovations to Meadowbrook Elementary

·      $47M for renovations for a like-new Hanaford Elementary

·      $48M for renovations to the High School

·      $12M for physical education renovations 

·      $1-2M for renovations to Cole Middle School

·      $100K for Eldredge Elementary  

When will we know what bonus incentives we will be receiving?

 According to RIDE, “At the completion of the project, LEAs (school districts) would either receive the base share rate (ours is 35%) OR a bonus rate for any eligible incentives not to exceed the maximum rate.” This means that we will have to wait until the construction projects are completed sometime within the next five years to be officially approved for these bonus incentives. However, according to Mr. Trimble, we are guaranteed by state law to be granted the bonuses as long as we meet the requirements. 

Is our ability to receive the bonus incentives tied with how many districts pass bonds and get RIDE approval for their projects?

No, the state has guaranteed that every district that meets the requirements for the bonus incentives will receive them, despite how many districts are approved for this funding.

Why did we get approval for an amount above the $150M bond that passed in East Greenwich?

The additional $22M in projected costs will be paid using our fund balance, not bond money. RIDE’s approval for these additional expenses will be based on the same reimbursement rate as the bond.

We have heard that construction costs are rising due to inflation and the competition for labor. Does RIDE compensate districts for these costs?

Each year, RIDE calculates the increased costs associated with school construction and renovations calculated as a price per square foot. Our approval for $172M was based on the projected costs for 2024. Since the work will not commence this year, if inflation continues to increase over the course of the project, East Greenwich taxpayers will have to bear the burden of those increased expenses or scale back the project.

If project costs increase, can East Greenwich move funds from one project to another?

Yes, if the cost of a new Frenchtown, for example, increases, we have the ability to move funds away from the high school in order to pay for the new elementary school. Of course, this is a strong concern for many who wish to make certain that the high school gets the renovations it needs to remain competitive. Already, many families choose to send their students to private schools due to the deteriorating facilities. 

While some of the information we learned is reassuring, the EGRTC believes that it is imperative that our elected bodies have balance come November in order to responsibly oversee the management of these projects, to listen to and gain the trust of the community, and to guarantee that problems that arise are transparently discussed in an open forum. 

Stage 2 School Construction Application Submitted to RIDE- Now What?

(February 23, 2024) On February 15th, the School Committee submitted Stage 2 plans to RIDE for the proposed school construction projects, and we await RIDE’s decision as to whether the plans will be approved and partially funded by the state. 

However, we continue to have concerns about the composition of the School Construction Committee and how that could impact future problems that may arise during the construction process. You may remember that Superintendent Ricca sent RIDE a letter asking for clarity about a draft of the Town’s ordinance that described the composition of the School Construction Committee. Ricca’s letter could have prevented our Stage 2 application from being submitted on time, thereby sacrificing the potential for $30M in bonus incentives. In the end, the Town Council and School Committee came to an agreement in which they will share control of the project. It appears that the Democrats, who hold every elected office in our town government, circled the wagons. 

In Newport, problems with who has ultimate authority over the Rogers High School construction project could prove instructive. The Newport town and school district are at odds over who is responsible for significant cost overages and contaminated soil on the site. “In a memo to the City Council, interim City Manager Sitrin recommended the city ‘inform’ the school that they can no longer add any more excavated soil to the pile. The word ‘inform’ is key to this request, as the city has very limited authority when it comes to decisions being made on the site.... Behan advised the council that ‘ordering’ the school to stop adding soil to the pile could lead to legal complications, possibly litigation between the City Council and School Building Committee.” 

And cost overages are now the new normal across the state due to elevated interest rates and multiple districts competing for the same contractors and laborers. In North Providence, the district had to completely abandon the plans for one of their three new elementary schools due to skyrocketing construction costs. What was originally estimated to cost $80M now comes with a price tag of $148M+. School Committee Chair Pallotta said that it bothers him “that residents won’t be getting what they were promised, saying there’s a trust factor here that’s impacted by changed plans, which I think is a little unfair to taxpayers.” In Cranston, school construction costs have risen to $40M beyond what was originally projected, so the town is faced with asking taxpayers to approve another bond. In Warwick, where a $350M bond was passed to build two new high schools, “costs have increased by millions and the city is considering extending by a decade the payback period for the bond, which would increase borrowing costs by tens of millions. To stay at the $350M price tag… amenities at the two schools have been cut back using a term that planners call ‘value engineering.’” In Johnston, four school projects estimated at $215 million last year could now cost $265M. Town leaders are proposing that the additional funds come from drawing down the town’s surplus. We expect East Greenwich will also have to make some tough decisions when confronted by cost overruns. 

We will continue to keep you up-to-date about how your elected officials are managing this $150M project. Of course, we believe that new voices on our School Committee and Town Council are necessary for better transparency.  

Important RIDOH Hearing on School Mask Policy- March 15

(February 13, 2024) At last night’s meeting, we were delighted to welcome Richard Southwell as our guest speaker. Southwell was the lead plaintiff in the school masking lawsuit against Governor McKee and the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH). The case was recently settled, but he updated us about an important March 15 public hearing that all parents need to know about. He explained that RIDOH has proposed a policy which would enable them to impose a mask mandate on school children for any infectious disease. Southwell’s Call to Action describes what you can do to prevent this from happening: attend the hearing, provide written or verbal testimony, and share this Call to Action with others. 

A Pattern of Dishonesty?

(February 4, 2024) Much has been shared in the news and on social media about Superintendent Brian Ricca’s letter to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and the EG Town Council’s position that the Bond Act supersedes legislation that gives the School Committee control over our school buildings. While we await a resolution to this, either by both bodies coming to an agreement about how many of their members will serve on the Building Committee or by a decision in Superior Court, we are concerned about contradictory statements made by our School Committee and the implications for diminishing public trust.

Superintendent Ricca’s letter to RIDE, dated 1/23, is written “on behalf of the School Committee”. And according to an EG News piece dated 1/30, “Ricca said he had communicated with the School Committee prior to submitting the request to RIDE.” However, the same EG News piece seems to imply that some school committee members may have known about Ricca’s letter before it was sent, while others did not. For example, School Committee Chairwoman Alyson Powell said, “‘Ricca acted under his own authority ‘on advice of counsel,’’ adding, ‘It’s not a decision that I or the School Committee made.’” But School Committee member Eugene Quinn “said he learned of Ricca’s letter on 1/26,” after the RIDE letter was sent.

When asked by EG News to comment in this article, School Committee members Kevin Murphy, Tim Munoz, and Claire Cecil Karb declined to comment. School Committee Vice Chair Nicole Bucka provided no comment other than to refer residents to Dr. Ricca. School Committee member William Hangan did not respond to EG News’ request. In addition, in a comment to this article, it was noted that, “The School Committee was not alerted to it until after it was sent.” And on 2/2, on the Nicole Bucka for EG Schools Facebook Page, Bucka stated, “The Superintendent acted squarely within his role in submitting this order, and all committee members were appraised [sic].” Furthermore, she stated that she will not be answering any questions on this topic.

Why are the timeline and these public statements, or lack thereof, important? Because the statements by the School Committee members are inconsistent, and they do not match what Dr. Ricca claimed. So, one or more members of the School Committee may not be telling the truth. Yet this is the group that wants to have majority control over $150M of taxpayer money. Furthermore, if some of them did know about the letter before it was sent, they did not discuss this matter in a public forum allowing for public comment. This potentially denied residents their right to openly discuss this issue and provide feedback. Finally, it is important because, as of yet, no one is coming forward to denounce the others. This means that the members who are telling the truth or who gave no comment could be protecting the ones who are possibly not being honest. Taxpayers should ask themselves, is this true leadership?

We shared similar concerns about honesty in October before the bond vote when we cited examples of disinformation by our elected officials. The misleading statements by our town leaders could have led voters to believe that if they didn’t vote in favor of the bond, we could lose all state funding. We explained that this was not accurate. 

Some readers may believe that the EGRTC is “politicizing” this issue. However, they should realize that, while we are not in favor of the lack of transparency amongst our School Committee members, we applaud our Town Council, all of whom are Democrats, for taking the necessary steps to provide oversight on this project. In fact, we believe that it is the School Committee that is politicizing this issue by closing ranks. It seems that they wish the Town Council would join them. 

Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.” EG taxpayers are encouraged to check the veracity of what our School Committee members are saying and hold our elected officials accountable. If you agree that they have been dishonest, we urge you to be civically engaged, attend meetings, run for office, and support those who step forward to run. Our children are depending on us to responsibly manage the largest municipal spending project of a generation.

The East Greenwich Town Council and School Committee will be having a joint budget meeting on Monday, February 5, at 6:30 PM at Swift Community Center. Here is the agenda.

Who Will Have Ultimate Control Over the School Construction Projects?

(January 30, 2024) On January 18th, the School Building Committee (SBC) voted unanimously to recommend an add/reno at Hanaford. On January 25th, the Town Council was blindsided by School Superintendent Dr. Brian Ricca’s submission of a Declaratory Order to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), the intent of which is to impede the Council from proceeding with its legal options as provided for in the locally and legislatively approved Bond Act. Only upon the Town’s request was the Council alerted to the existence of any such communication sent to RIDE, and it was the Council’s expectation that they were not going to be provided notice until RIDE took some action associated with this Order request.   

As noted in Dr. Ricca’s letter to RIDE, the School Committee is concerned about the composition of the yet-to-be-formed Construction Committee, which will be created after the Stage 2 submission to RIDE in mid-February. Ricca explained that in the new Construction Committee, the School Committee would have fewer votes and would lose control of the project, which he states the law provides to the School Committee. 

The EGRTC reached out to Town Manager Andy Nota for further clarification about this Order.

What is the purpose of this action? 

Nota: The project has approval of up to $150M in funding, ultimately decided by the Town Council, and was prepared to move this stage 2 application forward at this meeting on 1/29, except for this outstanding issue that just surfaced. This is not a mere request for information; it is an Order claiming improper and unlawful action on behalf of the Town Council which to me is completely unsubstantiated and misplaced. There are those that have already stated to me that this was just a request for information and clarification, but the content of this Declaratory Order request is much more than that and represents an attempt to impede the Council from progressing with its options as outlined in the legal and legislatively approved Bond Act. 

Why was this Declaratory Order made now?

Nota: I am professionally perplexed by the timeliness of the Order and when it was submitted. The Council started discussions on the Bond Act language in March 2023 and completed that process in August 2023 with no formal questions having been presented  The same week the SBC approves in unanimous fashion a proposed project scope, most likely to be acceptable to the Town and School on the stage 2 application, this Declaratory Order (not a mere request) is submitted by the Superintendent and represents a real threat to this school construction project and the largest ever community investment in public education in the Town’s history.   fail to understand or see any benefit or value to this prohibitive action being advanced at this time. School Legal Counsel recommended not moving the matter forward until an Order was received by RIDE, thus expecting the Town Council (who was unaware of this action) to approve this Stage II Application and wait for the potential of some outcome that may or may not support their responsible oversight of this project that was echoed by many residents during their contemplation about whether to support the $150M  bond. 

Who directed this action by the Superintendent?

Nota: I am very concerned to have learned that this matter was not discussed before the full school committee as the significance of this request and its content and potential impact on the community and this project go beyond my role or that of the superintendent in this community.  The matter pertaining to who directed this action as the Order noted it was provided to RIDE on behalf of the School Committee, although it is only signed by the Superintendent, remains unanswered question.  In review of the SC agendas, I am unaware of any formal vote having been taken on this matter by the committee as I have since learned that several School Committee members were unaware of the Order having been submitted, meaning that either the Superintendent worked independently with legal counsel on this matter or potentially a minority of the School Committee guided and directed this action. Such conduct may warrant further attention in this area to better understand the purpose of the action in developing and sending this formal request to RIDE and how that was initiated. Normally an internal matter of the School Committee would not raise these questions and would be the School Committee’s issue to address, although, in this case, a significant Town initiative involving a broad community-based project along with significant public debt, extends beyond the District and now involves the entire community as the potential impact of said action is far reaching and can affect other aspects of the community and local government. 

Who has the authority to establish the new Construction Committee?

Nota: According to the Bond Act, the Council has the option to delegate partial or full authority to a School Building Committee, a Construction Committee, or the School Committee. In addition, the Council is the only public body that can issue debt, as reflected in the Bond Act and Town Charter. To establish a committee, the Charter provides that the Town Council must adhere to the three-meeting process involving a public hearing. The Council approved of the first reading on 1/22 and set a public hearing date for 2/12 at which time they will discuss specifically the committee makeup, charge, and other relevant formation issues. 

How does the Bond Act grant the Town Council such authority?   

Nota: In general, Karen Grande, our Bond Counsel, noted that the Bond Act language approved by the Council has been vetted. Although it is not the more routine type of language used in such legislative documents, she is familiar with it and has seen it used before. In her experience, there is always clarity between a general law and a special Law of Applicability, like what was devised for the Town of East Greenwich in this matter. Meaning the Special Law was approved just for East Greenwich making it a specific application and was approved after the General Law, which means it traditionally supersedes the general law on the books, as it is presumed that the Legislature knew what it was doing regarding the law’s impact when it was approved.

Bond Counsel further noted that it remains clear that Town oversees all bond issuances to be signed by the Council President and Director of Finance, thus in any case, the Town is responsible for the funding and the approval of all contracts and expenditures, unless it decides to delegate the responsibility associated with expenditure approval and contract approval to another public body. The issuance of debt is found in the Bond Act and in the Town Charter and this responsibility rests purely with the Town Council through the process as outlined. 

What does the Bond Act state about the composition of the Construction Committee? 

Nota: Regarding the Construction Committee formation, Grande noted that the language of the Act requires the committee formation by the Council to conform to at least the basic minimum requirements of the RIDE regulations as noted in Section 4.9.2 Necessity of School Construction – Stage 1, (2) Construction Committee Members, including a minimum of eight people, including the Superintendent, at least one school committee member, local official responsible for school maintenance, a representative of the office or body authorized by law to construct school buildings in the municipality, a school principal for the subject school, a member who has knowledge of the educational mission and function of the facility, a local budget official or member of the finance committee, and at least one member of the community with architectural experience/engineering and/or construction experience to examine the design and construction plans for reasonableness. As with the present SBC, the Construction Committee can always be larger than the present SBC at thirteen members.

What legal standing does the School Committee have?

Nota: As echoed by Town Legal Counsel, there doesn’t appear to be any legal standing for the points raised in this Order request by the Superintendent and/or School District and the Town appears to be on solid legal footing in proceeding as planned with the ordinance construction and development of a construction committee to assume various responsibilities in the construction phase of this project encompassing Town Council oversight on all bond issuances and major contract approvals.  

Who will decide who has the authority in this case?

Nota: It is unclear at this moment what those exact next steps may be, although the Town Council is in review and considering its options at this point. In fact, I believe everyone would agree that resolving this matter locally is the best option, and we are pursuing that process at this time. Only if this matter is not resolved prior to Feb. 15th and is elevated to the level of seeking a court decision or should the Town feel we have any legal exposure in this matter and feel compelled to react, would the idea of pursuing a decision in Superior Court be contemplated. When you look at the facts of this situation, none of those options should really be necessary. 

In a nutshell, why does the Town Council oppose this Order?

Nota: This action goes far too far and is completely misplaced and detrimental to this community and this transformational project for our public schools that at the moment is extremely time sensitive. 

The EGRTC supports the Town Council in its efforts to provide oversight on the School Construction initiative and believes that it is important that the Council exercise its authority to shape the composition of the Construction Committee and to responsibly manage the funds that the community entrusted to it. It has been our observation from the beginning of this process that the School Building Subcommittee has not adequately sought community input, has made its meetings more convenient for its members than for the public, and has not sufficiently provided for the needs of the high school. And the School Committee has let the high school fall into such a state of disrepair as to lose our trust.

As we await further clarification, we will continue to keep you informed, and we urge community members to stay engaged. The School Committee has the Stage 2 application to RIDE on its Wednesday agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udnjSlm1YyHSH9KQzxN1bbwjXuNCwIa6/edit and the School Committee and the Town Council will hold a joint meeting on Monday, Feb. 5, at 6 p.m. at the Swift Community Center.

Safe, Warm, and Dry Should be our First Priority

(January 21, 2024) As the School Building Subcommittee must decide by February 15th whether to build new at Hanaford and must present RIDE with definite costs associated with each school project under the bond, the local outcry about the deterioration of our high school, estimated at $12.6M in needed outstanding repairs, should give the school committee pause about pursuing their vision of the costly, open, collaborative spaces that they had planned. 

Based on their comments at several School Building Subcommittee Community Forums and meetings, School Committee members Allyson Powell and Tim Munoz strongly favor a new build at Hanaford since it would better enable them to realize their vision for open-plan learning spaces such as the ones shown here that were presented by Colliers in March. In fact, they are absolutely unwilling to entertain the idea of money being moved from the elementary projects to the high school. They say it’s a “non-starter.”

While the photos from their presentation are visually striking, Powell and Munoz have not adequately explained why these architecturally impressive spaces are necessary to improve learning. They mention that they are essential for “21st Century Education,” yet even in our schools’ current state of overcrowding and disrepair, five of the East Greenwich schools earned the highest rating in the recent STAR Report on academic performance. Of course, this is attributable to the outstanding work of our teachers, staff, and principals. Furthermore, in a 2023 Yale study that examined the impact of school bonds on student academic performance, it was determined that in districts of high socio-economic status, like  East Greenwich, the “effect is indistinguishable from zero.” 

Indeed, there is not enough evidence to support the need for these open spaces, yet this trend appears to be worldwide. While classrooms should most assuredly be comfortable, well-lit, and fully supplied with the tools students need to learn, wide open spaces can actually be detrimental to learning. According to this 2023 study from npj Science of Learning, students in the open learning spaces read half as fluently as their peers in the traditional classrooms, mainly due to visual distractions and because the open layouts were so acoustically challenging.

Ultimately, when we pour the lion’s share of the bond money into our elementary schools, and our high school students are learning in substandard conditions, our district is not living up to its motto of “All Means All.”

There is some good news to report, however, in that the town is working with the district to provide $100K in funding to repair the leaky high school roof. This is unequivocally due to the community coming together to hold our elected leaders accountable. The EGRTC has long encouraged community engagement on this and other topics and has kept you informed through every step, which has elevated the focus on the high school by town leaders. Our voices are making a difference.

Still Concerned About the State of our School Buildings?

(The picture above was taken at EGHS in December three days after a rain storm.)

(January 13, 2024) This Wednesday, the 10th, many residents who attended the School Building Subcommittee meeting left unsatisfied that they still did not have a handle on the timeline for extensive, long deferred repairs to the high school, although they were presented with a general breakdown of where the repairs are needed, as depicted in this chart.

Town officials explained that public comment must be limited to the buildings as they relate to the stage 2 bond application to RIDE, and they directed frustrated parents to different meetings about the needed repairs. For those interested in following the progress of the Building Subcommittee, unfortunately they have moved future meetings back to mornings, and the next meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18th at 8:00 AM at Swift Community Center. We will share the Zoom link when it is announced.

Residents wishing to advocate for improved building maintenance and repair at the high school may attend the EGHS PTG Meeting on Wednesday, January 17, at 7:00 PM at the library. Director of Facilities Bob Wilmarth will provide a “Building Update.”

Another opportunity for engagement will be at future Facilities Subcommittee meetings, led by School Committee member William Hangan. The subcommittee last met in November, and the minutes are here: https://opengov.sos.ri.gov/Common/DownloadMeetingFiles?FilePath=\Minutes\5196\2023\478812.pdf. There is not a scheduled meeting at this time, but we have twice reached out to Mr. Hangan, who has not responded. We will share more information about upcoming meetings as soon as possible.

Division Road Updates

(January 7, 2024) We are pleased to see that the Town Solicitor, Andrew Teitz, has appealed to the RI State Superior Court on behalf of the Town of East Greenwich and the Town of East Greenwich Planning Board. You may remember that on December 30, 2023, the State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB) overturned the EG Planning Board’s decision to deny the development’s plan to build a 410+ unit neighborhood on Division Road. This was one of SHAB’s last decisions before the state shut down this body and moved some decisions regarding local planning and zoning as they pertain to affordable housing to the State Superior Court.

Keep in mind that the recent concerns about the poor condition of the high school and the fact that the town’s debt burden prevents us from building a new high school until after the new 27-year school construction bond is paid off, may only be exacerbated by the out-of-control building of high density developments thanks to the legislative efforts of our state representatives and state senator. In addition, our town officials have stated that they fully expect to see several more high-density developments be planned in the coming years.

However, it is because of the outcry of so many residents of East Greenwich that our town is continuing to fight state overreach. Please know that it is unlikely that the Court will rule in favor of East Greenwich, but your efforts are not in vain. Residents need to stay involved and continue to send the message to our elected officials that we are not in favor of overdevelopment at the expense of responsible, local planning. And East Greenwich needs to elect new leaders who will make this a priority at the state level.  

EGHS Building Subcommittee Meeting Updates

(January 4, 2024) After repeated requests by the EGRTC and the public over many months, the School Building Subcommittee moved its meeting to the evening on Tuesday when more residents could attend. The result was the participation of 70-80 members of the public in person and online and a productive conversation between taxpayers, elected officials, staff, and Colliers. Parents expressed concern about the needed repairs at the high school and what progress is being made. The EGRTC reached out to Town Manager Andy Nota to follow up on many of the remarks from this meeting.

School Committee Member Tim Munoz mentioned that the high school currently has $15M in deferred maintenance and repairs. On what is this number based?

According to Town Manager Andy Nota, “The $15M+/- estimate came originally from the Jacobs Study back in 2017-2018 and just addressed visible and apparent areas of need, those both immediate and longer-term as well as some less critical improvements. Those cost estimates, I’m confident, are much more costly in today’s construction dollars.”

What assessments have occurred at the high school since 2018, and what were the results?

Nota shared, “In 2020, Colliers issued a Facility Conditions Assessment which identified 78 individual projects related to maintenance repair and regulatory issues across East Greenwich High School. The identified cost for the repair of these deficiencies is estimated to be $12.6 million. Each project was assigned a priority based upon its relative urgency of need as judged by the Colliers inspection team. Of the total need, $4.3 million has been deemed High Priority."

Summary of Identified Needs at the High School by Priority

·      Priority 1– High Priority $4.3M: Projects include asset protection, quality of space, physical environments, or regulatory concern.

·      Priority 2– Important $6.5M: Projects are not imminent in nature but do improve the quality of the school’s environment, both administratively and publicly.

·      Priority 3– Deferrable $1.7M: Projects are recognized for the impending nature of their existence. However, at this time, these issues can be deferred until a later date.

Total Facilities Needs $12.6

What specific areas in the high school were identified in the assessment?

The Town Manager explained, “The individual needs were categorized within eight major building maintenance systems as summarized below.

· Exterior Shell: Projects total $253K and include repair and replacement of original exterior doors, addressing ground water infiltration at the auditorium and machine shop, caulking horizontal and vertical exterior joints, painting soffits, and repairs and painting of the exterior wood unit ventilator covers.

· Interior Shell: Projects total $4.7M and include renovating the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms, replacing interior corridor doors, replacing auditorium seating and gym bleachers, constructing permanent walls in lieu of movable partitions to improve acoustic separation between classrooms, painting corridor ceilings, and replacing the vinyl floor tile in the cafeteria.

· HVAC: Projects total $2.7M and include replacing the boilers and auxiliary equipment, upgrading pneumatic controls to direct digital controls (DDC), replacing original rooftop and interior air handling units, and repairing insulation in the boiler room.

· Electrical: Projects total $1.3M driven by the need to replace the electrical power and lighting controls for the building due to age and inadequate circuits and outlets.

· Plumbing: Projects total $472.8K to replace selected fixtures, faucets, flush valves, and shower valves, repair piping insulation and replace the domestic water heater in room 216.

· Grounds: Projects total $1.4M and include replacing the synthetic turf field, resurfacing the running track, repaving walkways in the courtyard, filling cracks and seal coating parking lots, and improving lawn areas.

· Statutory – $1.6M in Statutory projects include providing a sprinkler system throughout the building, constructing a second means of egress from the boiler room, replacing corridor door hardware with security-type on classrooms and offices, adding an emergency shower in the wood shop, and adding panic hardware from the band room.

· Accessibility – Accessibility projects total $275K and include modifying toilet rooms for ADA conformance, upgrading water fountains, and replacing signage throughout the building.”

At the Building Subcommittee meeting, Mr. Nota stated that whenever the school committee makes a valid funding request based on dire infrastructure needs, the town council has been willing to support those requests. Has the school committee made specific requests regarding infrastructure needs, and has the town council provided funding to support them? Has this funding then been used to repair/replace the things that were in need? 

Nota stated, “My point was directed at specific individuals present when making this statement. I always hear that school repairs have not been made due to lack of funding, which means to me that someone has made a professional request, and that request has been denied at some level within the district or later in the budget process by the Council or community in a rejection of a bond. In my experience, this has not been the case– which prompts the question as to what level of maintenance related planning is actually occurring within the district?   

I am unaware of any such scenario having occurred where a request has been made and later denied. In recent years, there has been a supplemental appropriation for the operating budget in 2019 and other actions taken directly by the Town, for the HS turf field replacement (approx. $400K, $800K total project) and Cole tennis court crack repairs (approx. $16K), Girls Varsity Softball Field dug-out construction, and other such efforts when action was not occurring in the district although need existed at these facilities.  

The Town is now moving forward in planning all major outdoor improvements to community and school outdoor facilities, competitive and passive. (Academy Field, Eldredge Park, High School Complex, Trails at the donated 125 acre Tanner Clarke Preserve and the recently purchased 40 acre Pine Property on Tillinghast and other initiatives.

As you’re aware, I have taken actions in reducing the districts overall transfer request in recent years, and it is then the responsibility of the District to make any such modifications to the reallocation of funds within their overall budget. The district will many times reduce capital or other such projects, to avoid an impact on program or its employees, but they do have options in this regard.

In addition, the Town has been paying for years for a series of operating budget services that clearly should be reflected in the school operating budget. This would include such services like trash removal/dumpster services, SRO costs, substance abuse prevention and mental health services, grounds maintenance, and others totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the end, these are still tax dollars, but it does skew the district’s cost per pupil reporting and other Uniform Chart of Account assessments, due to the fact that these funds still reside in the municipal budget, inflating the Towns operation. We have been slowly repositioning these costs back in the school budget, and this year, we will reposition approximately $80K to the school budget to support the dumpster contract. We perform this adjustment incrementally to avoid any volatility in overall budget impact.”

School Committee Member Mr. Munoz and others stated that the needs at the high school would be covered by the $30M that the town council has earmarked for the high school. Will the recent problems be repaired using bond funds?

Nota explained, “I would not focus solely on the $10-15M estimate of needed capital work. Yes- some of the more pressing issues noted in that original list will be funded, others have already been completed over the past five years, while others will be addressed with funding from this project/bond or funded with Paygo capital funds or (annual capital funding) in future years. The vast majority of funding will be invested at the HS in the specific areas noted in the planning for this bond. Locker rooms, arts, life skills, accessibility, new classrooms, auditorium, etc.”

How can we be assured that the high school will receive the needed funds in the coming years?

Nota stated, “The struggle we are having at times as you witnessed is that there remains a singular focus by some on the two elementary schools Grade 1-5. I believe we have sufficient funding to value engineer those two buildings, improve Meadowbrook to an appropriate standard for PreK-K, and still have sufficient funding to make substantive improvements at the high school. Of course, construction costs do remain variable and extremely high at this stage, so that may impact this plan in the coming years, should economic conditions worsen during that time period.    

In addition, we do have flexibility built into the Bond Act language allowing the town to free up some added funding, should that be needed to complete some of the more important elements of this work. We just briefly touched upon this point last night.”

How does the town’s debt burden affect our ability to borrow in the future to meet the high school’s needs?

Nota: “When we incur this added debt burden, we truly need to retire some existing debt before we can take on any added debt of significance in the near future. We can address small bond needs but nothing even close to investing another $30-50M in the High School over the next 10 years. We will need to wait until the Cole Bond is paid down in 2037 before considering our next major investment, so we need to plan accordingly. A good estimate today for a new HS alone, falls within the range of $150-175M.

On the Town side in this coming year, we are issuing $4M in debt for a short-term road bond for paving, up to a $12M bond for needed improvements at the Highway and Fleet Maintenance Facility and possibly a $3-4M capital bond to support both fleet replacement and other capital needs.”

Is any money left over from previous bonds that could be used for future projects?

According to Nota, “I also referenced the 2019 $5M bond approved by the community for capital improvements throughout the district. For various reasons, these projects were never sent to RIDE by the District in the form of an application, and thus we continue to have a balance of approximately $2M today, which has been reduced by $1 mil. - $1.5 mil. in a series of emergency $500k allocations in the past 2 years.  

A prior authorization balance on a previous application was used initially to spend some of these funds and receive reimbursement, but we are at a standstill until such time that the district receives authorization from RIDE for eligibility to receive reimbursement. My mention [ night] was to draw attention to this issue and potentially gain access to these funds as part of this broader project, which is being addressed by the consultants in the Stage II application. (So in some cases, funding has been approved in prior years, but not spent on specific projects discussed, and later reapportioned to other projects based on the timing or delays in one or more project(s)."

Many parents are frustrated that the problems at the high school have existed for so long, and they do not have a handle on the progress/steps for accomplishing needed repairs.

Nota: “As noted, in the end it is really just about results. It involves a realistic scope of work that can be performed and achieved by the building staff and whether they are capable of managing the district’s business at the level required. A change of some type is clearly warranted, although that could take many forms: staffing, outsourcing of services, leadership, etc., but the present system is not working and can’t be defended in protecting and caring for our Town assets and the environment used by our residents.”

According to Town Council President Mark Schwager, the next meeting of the School Building Subcommittee will also be taking place in the evening. The EGRTC will keep you informed about it once it is announced. 

Division Road Development Update

(November 28, 2023) As predicted, the developer of the proposed 410+ unit Division Road site yesterday appealed to the RI State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB) which overturned the August decision of the East Greenwich Planning Board not to approve this development. It was announced by our town solicitor at last night’s town council meeting and confirmed by phone with SHAB today. This means that the state has bypassed the will of East Greenwich residents and its local authority to carefully and responsibly plan the growth of our community, and the development has been given the go ahead to proceed with Phase 1- Master Plan Review, potentially adding 400-800 cars to the area and contributing to the overcrowding in our schools. As of January, the SHAB will be disbanded, and the town’s only recourse is for our town solicitor to appeal to the State Superior Court. We reached out to our Town Manager, Andy Nota, who informed us that the EG Town Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss its options, including various legal appeal scenarios,  in executive session on December 11. 

You may remember that neighbors of the proposed development hired an attorney at their own expense to argue against its approval, and the decision by the SHAB mentions them as “Intervenors.” Not only has this proven to be a costly burden on nearby residents, but our State Representative Justine Caldwell and State Senator Bridget Valverde actually voted in favor of legislation which provides for further state overreach after promising they would not do so.

You can read more about our position on this topic here and in the LTE below.

Check Out Our LTE in The Providence Journal (11/25/23)

EG School Bond Passes Despite Community Concerns

(November 8, 2023) The East Greenwich $150M school bond is the most consequential municipal spending initiative of a generation. And it passed, despite the need for better responsiveness about community preferences, mixed messaging, and the potential negative impacts to neighboring properties. To be clear, the EGRTC was not opposed to the bond’s passage and is encouraged that our town could be eligible to receive 55% in state aid. However, we are concerned about the process that was followed and the lack of diverse representation managing your tax dollars on this project for the next 30 years. 

In the past, our School Committee has sought its residents’ feedback about a host of topics using online surveys that went home to families: school start times, the full return to school during Covid, the academic calendar, full day kindergarten, and the superintendent search. And our Town Council sought taxpayer feedback with its Community Services Survey to include questions about dog parks, pickleball courts, a natural hazards mitigation plan, and the Swift Community Center expansion. Yet, a survey was not sent out to gauge your preferences regarding whether Eldredge Elementary School is decommissioned, which schools should be renovated/rebuilt, and what increase in taxes residents could comfortably support. Because they did not garner this feedback through a survey, our elected leaders were lacking important data needed to understand whether the wider community was behind their proposal. 

  Many have stated that the public had multiple opportunities to have a say in the school construction bond proposal process before any decisions were made. However, school building subcommittee meetings were held on weekday mornings, excluding most working people, including teachers, from attending. The subcommittee also didn’t meet from mid-September to mid-January during the last election cycle when they would have had the ear of the public. At the spring Community Forums, some residents shared their preference that the bulk of the bond be used to rebuild our flagship institution, the high school, where we lose the most students to private schools due, in part, to its deteriorating condition. (Even the “School Master Plan Construction Initiative” questionnaire, which was part of the EG Community Engagement Page, echoed the same sentiments about the high school being the priority: https://east-greenwich-ri.civilspace.io/en/projects/master-planning-process-school-construction/engagement_reports/1) Other parents shared at the forums that the only truly walkable school in the district, Eldredge, should not be closed, even if it would cost more to maintain and fewer students could attend. Some residents left with the impression that the point of the forums was to disseminate, not gather, information. 

Furthermore, town messaging on social media and in our local newspaper could have led voters to think that if they didn’t support the bond, EG could lose all state school construction aid. Town Councilor Caryn Corenthal commented on social media that, if the bond fails, EG taxpayers will have to shoulder the entire burden of school construction in the future. She asked, “Should we wait to build when the town has to absorb all costs?” And Vice Chair of the School Committee Nicole Bucka shared the same message on her Facebook page. She wrote, “Fund necessary school building updates either with state reimbursements or (down the road) fund them 100% on the EG taxpayers’ dime.” This is not accurate. The RI State Legislature voted to fund school construction at a base rate of 35% in East Greenwich, and this “Housing Aid” will not go away next year. What will be expiring is the potential for an additional 20% in bonus incentives that we may be eligible for. On October 13, Ms. Bucka published a Letter to the Editor in East Greenwich News in which she shared the same information: https://eastgreenwichnews.com/opinion-vote-yes-on-the-school-bond/. She wrote, “Delaying this investment will mean our community will bear the full cost in the future,” a statement that was revised by the newspaper’s editor. 

Then, Town Councilor Renu Englehart commented online that the state could impose another moratorium on school construction spending, and we could lose the base reimbursement rate of 35%. In actuality, during the 2011-2015 moratorium, RIDE assessed the state of all the schools, after which the Schoolhouse Report was released and the School Building Authority Capital Fund was created. (http://rihebc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Treasury_RIHEBC_TrainingPresentation_Oct21.pdf) It would not make sense for RIDE to impose another moratorium in the near future as the study has already taken place, and the report found that most of the older schools across the state are deteriorating; this problem grows worse every year. Also, there is a law in effect for 2024 which provides EG with 35% in aid, so that base reimbursement rate is not in immediate danger. (https://ride.ri.gov/funding-finance/school-building-authority/housing-aid) Unfortunately, these mixed messages by our elected leaders have caused unnecessary confusion amongst voters.

  Finally, many residents feel that their concerns about the potential for damage to their homes were not adequately addressed. Colliers (formerly Strategic Building Solutions) also managed the Cole Middle School project which resulted in a five-year lawsuit for the town by homeowners in the adjacent Sarah's Trace development who suffered damage to their homes costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in repair. We were surprised that our School Committee would vote to retain Colliers as the design firm on this next project, and its representative, Derek Osterman, did not regain residents’ trust when, at the Community Forum on October 18, he stated that there is no plan to analyze and monitor damage to homes near Frenchtown and Hanaford through pre-construction surveys (at minute 15:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XrK63alCeo). More concerning to nearby homeowners is that their homes are even closer to the proposed construction than Cole is to Sarah’s Trace. 

  The EGRTC has consistently advocated for transparency throughout this process and has worked to keep you informed so that you could make the best decision about the bond for your family and our community. True leadership seeks community buy-in, especially when the financial impacts are so significant. For now, let’s continue to stay engaged about the school construction bond; the next School Building Committee meeting is on Friday, Nov. 10, at 11:00 AM at Cole Middle School. And in 2024, let’s ensure our community has more balanced representation.

Special Election Updates

(October 31, 2023) Some have been wondering what will happen if the school bond fails. The EG Town Council and School Committee are now stating that if the bond does not pass, while it would be difficult, it is possible for them to revise the school construction plan and be able to submit Stage 2 plans to RIDE by the February 2024 deadline. This means that voters should not feel pressured to vote for something simply based on the “once in a lifetime” offer of the 20% bonus incentives. This does not mean that voters should stay home on November 7th; in fact, any revision to the bond would depend on how the election results break down. Read more about this here: https://eastgreenwichnews.com/what-if-school-construction-bond-fails/

The EGRTC is not advising voters whether to approve the bond as we believe that each household’s needs and budget are different. However, we have endeavored to keep you informed about the process and have advocated on your behalf for transparency from our elected officials, especially about information that has been confusing or misleading.

Furthermore, we are encouraging every Republican to vote. This choice rests in your hands, so please don't allow a small minority to chart the community’s educational and fiscal trajectory for the next 27+ years. We know that special elections typically have a low voter turnout, but let’s not sit on the sidelines while important decisions are being made. Check out the EGRTC Blog on our website for all of our coverage of the bond and other topics of concern: https://www.egrtc.org/the-egrtc-blog.

Early voting is already underway and will be continuing at Town Hall from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM through November 6th. Election Day voting will occur only at Swift Community Center from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Please reach out to us if you need a ride on Election Day- we would be happy to help. Email us at info@egrtc.org.

Misleading Media About the School Bond

(October 17, 2023) Why are our elected officials spreading misleading information about the upcoming school bond? Two weeks ago, Town Councillor Caryn Corenthal commented on social media that, if the bond fails, EG taxpayers will have to shoulder the entire burden of school construction in the future. And Vice Chair of the School Committee Nicole Bucka shared the same disinformation on her Facebook page.

This is false. As we have shared in previous statements, the RI State Legislature voted to fund school construction at a base rate of 35% in East Greenwich, and this funding will not go away next year. It is called “Housing Aid.” What will be expiring is the potential for an additional 20% in bonus incentives that we may be eligible for. This amounts to $30M on a bond of our size. 

On October 13, Ms. Bucka published a Letter to the Editor in East Greenwich News in which she twice purported the same thing: https://eastgreenwichnews.com/opinion-vote-yes-on-the-school-bond/

After we corrected Ms. Bucka and several days had passed, East Greenwich News finally edited these misleading statements.

To be clear, the EGRTC understands the need for our schools to be updated, and the bonus incentives of $30M in state aid are substantial. We simply want taxpayers to have the correct information so that they may make an educated decision that is best for their families and our community. What is disappointing is that the misleading statements amount to fear mongering about EG’s most consequential municipal spending of a generation. The question is, why do our elected officials persist in using these high-pressure tactics? If the state funding is a “once in a lifetime opportunity,” why not take the time to get their facts right?

We encourage voters to attend the Community Forum at NEIT on Wednesday, October 18, from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. Although questions are being pre-screened by the moderator and editor of EG News, and the public will not be able to ask questions directly to our elected officials, it will be one of the last opportunities before Election Day to learn about the school bond.

Make Your Voice Heard About the School Bond

(October 1, 2023) Now is the time to become informed and ask questions about the upcoming School Bond Referendum. The EGRTC wishes to promote community engagement about this topic and will continue to highlight opportunities for voters to have the data they need to make a knowledgable decision at our special election on November 7.

School Committee member Dr. Eugene Quinn has created a searchable database regarding the tax impact on your household. You can look up your address to determine how much the proposed bond will cost by going to http://eugenequinnforegschools.org/2023_bond_impact_test/bond_impact_index.html?mibextid=Zxz2cZ. You will see your estimated yearly  taxes if the bond is approved and if the bond is rejected. The difference, or delta, is the yearly increase if the bond is approved. The yearly tax increases include all of the operating costs for the town as well as other debt. Please note that these figures are based on your house’s current assessed value, and the town will be reassessing these values over the next couple of years.

Also, East Greenwich News, in conjunction with the EG Chamber of Commerce, is hosting a one-hour community forum in which school and town officials will be answering questions about the school bond. The event will be happening at New England Tech auditorium on October 18, from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. Residents are encouraged to send their questions in advance to editor@eastgreenwichnews.com. The Chair of the EGRTC is concerned that audience members will not be able to ask questions directly to our elected officials, and all of the queries will be pre-screened by the moderator. The Chair has requested that voters not be restricted by an intermediary and that the forum not be limited to one hour if voters have additional questions.

Finally, there is another forum in which voters may submit questions as well as view other residents’ inquiries about the bond. Please note that this online forum closes on October 31, and no questions will be posted after that date. This discussion is part of the Engage EG town website and is moderated by Town Manager Andy Nota: https://east-greenwich-ri.civilspace.io/en/projects/master-planning-process-school-construction/discussion_topics/discussion-of-master-planning-process-district-priorities-funding-impacts-and-150-mil-ballot-question.

We hope you will participate in one or more of these opportunities to be aware of how the school bond could affect your family.

Mark Your Calendars & Vote on the School Construction Bond

(September 23, 2023) Did you know that special elections typically have low voter turnout? East Greenwich residents, please make your voice heard by voting on our town’s most consequential municipal spending of a generation. Here is some important information regarding the upcoming $150M East Greenwich School Bond Referendum.

What: The 27-year $150M bond is slated to cover the costs of a new build of Frenchtown Elementary, a new build or renovations to Hanaford Elementary, and targeted renovations to the High School.

Of the $150M, the state is projected to cover $82.5M, or 55%, of the total costs. This includes expected temporary bonus incentives of 20%, totaling $30M, the application for which expires next February and which are described here: https://ride.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur806/files/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Funding-and-Finance-Wise-Investments/SchoolBuildingAuthority/SchoolBondPresentation.pdf. The usual state reimbursement rate for school construction and renovation, also known as “Housing Aid,” is 35%, and this does not expire.

In August, Town Manager Andy Nota shared the projected tax impacts with the public. These values include all operating costs for the town as well as current debt and the school bond. Your yearly tax increases would be based on your home’s assessed value. Please note that the town will be reassessing house values over the next couple of years. https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2100996/_150_mil._Tax_Levy_Impact_24Auth_Unissued_Bonds_ALL_07_07_2023.pdf

When/Where:  Early voting will be happening at Town Hall from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, and Election Day voting will occur only at Swift Community Center from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. More details about registering and voting can be found at https://elections.ecms.ri.gov/voter-registration.

The EGRTC will continue to keep you informed about this topic in the coming weeks.

Let's Talk About the Upcoming School Construction Bond

(August 21, 2023) At our next monthly meeting on Monday, September 18, we’ll be seeking your feedback about the upcoming School Construction Bond, which East Greenwich residents will vote on this November in a special election. Last week, the Town Council voted to put a $150M bond on the ballot. This could pay for one or two new elementary schools and some renovations to the high school. A summary of this meeting can be found here: https://eastgreenwichnews.com/town-council-votes-3-2-on-150-million-bond-for-school-construction/

According to the town’s finance manager, the impacts on every taxpayer will be spread out over 27 years with the biggest increase happening in 2027. Please note that the town will be reassessing home values over the next couple of years. https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2100996/_150_mil._Tax_Levy_Impact_24Auth_Unissued_Bonds_ALL_07_07_2023.pdf

• House assessed at $500K- taxes will jump $1260 in 2027

• House assessed at $750K- taxes will jump $1888 in 2027

• House assessed at $1M- taxes will jump $2517 in 2027

• House assessed at $1.25M- taxes will jump $3146 in 2027

These values include all operating costs for the town as well as current debt and the proposed school bond. We hope you will join us on September 18th to ask questions and provide feedback about this bond. Of course, you can always email us to let us know your thoughts at info@egrtc.org.

We will also be hearing from our guest speaker William Jacobson, Cornell Law Professor and Founder of Legal Insurrection. His talk “Recent Supreme Court Decisions Explained” will help us understand how the Court’s rulings affect us here in Rhode Island. Join us at Safehouse Restaurant on Old Forge Road. Doors open at 6:30, and meeting begins at 7:00 PM. Dinner and bar service will be available.

East Greenwich Sent the State a Message

(August 5, 2023) After months of hearings, the East Greenwich Planning Board voted this week not to approve Ned Capozzi’s Division Road development. They were persuaded by the compelling testimony of a host of residents who described the likely negative impacts on the health, safety, and environment of the community, as well as the fact that the project would be in contradiction to our Comprehensive Plan that sets aside the western part of town as rural. Most interestingly, the Board found that the evidence provided by the traffic expert hired by the residents about the impacts to the surrounding roads and neighborhoods was more convincing than that of the town’s own traffic expert.

While the developer will almost assuredly appeal the decision, and the state has the power to override our local boards, it is encouraging that so many East Greenwich residents came together to push back against state overreach. What is unfortunate is that our own elected officials have long been silent on this topic, albeit a few Town Councilors have spoken out in their personal capacities. We have already demonstrated that, during campaign season, our state reps misrepresented their intentions to uphold local control at the statehouse. However, please remember that our Town Council didn’t make any empty promises regarding pushing back against developer abuse of our affordable housing laws. In fact, they signaled that they would simply allow it to happen. It was Republican Town Council candidates who sounded the alarm about this development and the need for better advocacy on your behalf: https://mailchi.mp/e223152fdc54/read-our-town-council-candidates-lte-on-affordable-housing?e=[UNIQID]

Ultimately, East Greenwich has sent a message to the statehouse that we prefer local control, that we trust our neighbors to make responsible decisions to grow our community in a way that helps people who need housing while minimizing the negative consequences to our schools, safety, and environment. While this is an important message, we must take the next steps to regain our autonomy in 2024. What can you do next?

• Run as a candidate.

• Join the EGRTC as a voting member to help choose qualified candidates.

• Donate to the EGRTC so we can support them.

• Volunteer to help them successfully run their campaigns.

• Vote for those who will fairly represent your interests.

Please reach out to us to discuss how you can get involved and make a difference in your community- info@egrtc.org.

Progressive Control or Local Control?

(July 24, 2023) Progressives who criticize concerned residents for their supposed NIMBY attitudes about the Division Road project ignore the fact that it is not the affordable nature of the development that concerns them. It is the high-density quality of the project and the inevitable change in the rural, western side of town that is supposed to be set aside as such in our town’s Comprehensive Plan. Overdevelopment of rural areas in East Greenwich, combined with the deforestation of nearby West Greenwich to create solar farms, is an ecological nightmare. 

Progressives are experiencing cognitive dissonance as their concerns for the environment are clashing with their out-of-control push for overdevelopment. They should know that overdevelopment, especially of a high-density nature, causes excessive storm water runoff, polluting nearby bodies of water. As it stands, the Carrs Pond and Greenwich Cove areas are compromised, and this development and others that will follow, will only exacerbate the problem. Please see the DEM's 2022 Impaired Waters Report (https://dem.ri.gov/.../xkgbur861/files/2022-08/iwr22.pdf).

According to the Conservation Law Foundation, "New England’s coastal watersheds are the second most developed in the country, with 17 percent of the land area developed – a number that could rise to 30 percent if current rates of development continue." THE CLF predicts that New England is projected to lose hundreds of thousands more acres of forest and farmland to development by 2050. (https://www.clf.org/.../CLF_WhitePaper...) "From boil water orders, to fish advisories, to beach closures, the effects of stormwater pollution, particularly after a heavy rain, have health and economic implications for everyone from the source to the sea." 

It appears that the EG Planning Board is not inclined to approve the project with at least one member expressing the fact that the developer has not offered any concessions to the residents who have spoken out about how it will affect their families. However, developer Nick Capozzi knows that if our Planning Board refuses to approve, he can bypass local planning by appealing to the State Housing Appeals Board which will almost certainly allow the development to be built.

East Greenwich News is today reporting what you heard here first (https://mailchi.mp/b7dfcdea1247/the-neighbors-dont-get-to-decide?e=[UNIQID]) about Senate Bill 1037, which State Senator Bridget Valverde voted to approve and which further erodes our local control. “One factor that has not been discussed is new state laws easing housing regulations that go into effect Jan. 1, 2024. One law is particularly relevant since it will make it easier for developers to maximize density by providing more affordable units. Developers would get 5 units per acre with 25 percent affordable (like the Division Road project), 9 units per acre with 50 percent affordable and 12 units per acre for 100 percent affordable projects. In other words, if Capozzi were to sell his property to another developer or withdrew his current application and resubmitted it after Jan. 1 as a 50 percent affordable project, he could build 720 units. An all-affordable project could come in at 960 units.“ (https://eastgreenwichnews.com/planning-board-skeptical-about-division-road-development/)

The EGRTC believes that it is still important that residents speak out about their concerns in every forum possible and send a message to our state lawmakers that they are not satisfied with their broken promises about returning local control to our town. And it is imperative that we replace our state legislators and town councilors by electing common sense candidates who will advocate for East Greenwich. Can't run for office but still want to help? Donate to our Summer Fundraising Campaign, $24 for 2024.

Who's Fighting For You? 

(July 6, 2023) If you missed our recent pieces about how your state representative and state senator broke their campaign promises to fight state overreach with regard to planning and zoning, check out our expanded Letter to the Editor which was published today in The Pendulum.

Regarding the Division Road 410 unit development, the next Planning Board meeting will be held on July 19 at town hall, and, according to the EG Director of Planning, Al Ranaldi, the Planning Board chair plans on limiting public comment to the information presented within three outstanding reports (archeological, ecological, and RIDOT report regarding access points from this state highway) or any additional new information not discussed during past meetings. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts about how the largest development in the history of East Greenwich will affect our community. This will likely be your last opportunity in which to do so.

Here is an update about the last planning board meeting, where you may also leave your comment:

https://eastgreenwichnews.com/vote-on-division-road-project-likely-by-august/?mc_cid=8e1d48bca2&mc_eid=17eb490f6d&fbclid=IwAR29Rh_WHRURaUSsOzzbZ6bfsTKR6VP6NjmFKDGuf4PPf6PLPWgDx7YKVqs

Your state lawmakers may not be fighting for you, but the EGRTC continues to advocate for you and your family.

"The neighbors don't get to decide."

(June 30, 2023) At the June 21 EG Planning Board meeting, Bill Landry, the lawyer for the Division Road project developer Ned Capozzi, stated, “The neighbors don’t get to decide.” Never was this more the case than now because your State Senator, Bridget Valverde, just voted to approve several affordable housing bills which further erode local control over zoning and planning. Mr. Landry may have been referring to who gets to decide whether another traffic study is done, but it could easily have been the General Assembly’s slogan for this legislative session.

When it was time for Ms. Valverde to win your vote in 2022, however, her approach was entirely different. At the candidate forum last fall, she stated, “I know this is a hot button issue right now because of the proposed development over on Division Road. I absolutely do respect our home rule provisions that we have here in the State of Rhode Island for cities and towns to make their own zoning and planning decisions. Our affordable housing laws have been on the books since the early 90s in some form or another, and, to my knowledge, I don’t believe that anyone has tried to amend those laws yet. If that’s something that the towns that I represent are interested in trying to pursue through the General Assembly, you know, I’d definitely be open to that conversation.” (This forum video, along with the one featuring Rep. Justine Caldwell’s broken promise, can be viewed on our website at https://www.egrtc.org/events. Ms. Valverde’ remarks begin at minute 10:33).

One bill which Senator Valverde voted to approve, Senate Bill 1037 (http://webserver.rilegislature.gov/BillText/BillText23/SenateText23/S1037A.pdf), diminishes local control in the following ways-

• Allows a density bonus for developers to build up to 13 units per acre in areas where public water and sewer access is available. If you live on the east side of town, one of these developments could be built next door to you.

• Allows a density bonus for developments of up to 10 units per acre where the builder cannot connect to public sewer and water. Imagine how this could affect the quality of life for people who are currently living on the western, rural side of town.

• Only requires one parking spot per unit. This could further exacerbate the parking problem in the downtown areas.

• Prevents the town from having a moratorium on development, so even if the residents of East Greenwich wish to pause and plan how to manage growth, the state has taken away that possibility.

• Previously, the law required local review boards to ensure “there will be no significant environmental impact from the development...”  However, the amended law reduces environmental protection by eliminating this language.

If Senator Valverde had been open to returning zoning and planning power to the town, as she stated in the forum, she may have joined Senator Gordon Rogers in his efforts to create a coalition of rural communities seeking better local control over affordable housing laws, and she would have encouraged the EG Town Council to write a resolution to that effect. https://www.valleybreeze.com/news/rogers-to-form-coalition-of-rural-communities-to-combat-overreaching-state-zoning/article_c2cf4e0c-95fc-11ed-9c08-3b86eb68b20b.html

A quick look at Senator Valverde’s campaign finance records indicates that much of her funding is derived from special interest groups and PACs from outside of East Greenwich: http://www.ricampaignfinance.com/RIPublic/Filings.aspx

When it comes to the health, safety, environment, wildlife, traffic, and quality of life in your neighborhood, our lawmakers are taking away your power to decide. But the neighbors will get to decide on Election Day, 2024. 

Promises, Promises, Promises

(June 25, 2023) If you are concerned about the 410+ unit development on Division Road, you should be aware that Representative Justine Caldwell, who represents East and West Greenwich,  has not kept her campaign promise to fight state overreach of housing/zoning/planning. Last fall, during the candidate forum, Rep. Caldwell stated that she would "go up to the Statehouse in January… and say this actually isn't working for East Greenwich. It’s probably not working for a lot of cities and towns. I speak to people at their doors, I talk to people on the phone about some ideas that we could do to have more local control, and I work very closely with our town council. The idea that we have wrested away local control from East Greenwich is simply untrue.” (Her remarks begin at 29:50 in this video: https://youtu.be/2SbVp6cwgt8).

You should know that Ms. Caldwell did the opposite of what she promised. She voted to approve House Bill 6058, which amends the current law by actually giving towns less, not more control over planning and zoning. This bill changes the requirement for developments that are greater than 10 units regarding the percentage of units that must be considered affordable. Previously, the law required that 10% of the units be affordable with inclusionary zoning. This law increases that minimum to 25% of the units as affordable. While it is helpful that more units will be built that are affordable, towns will now have less, not more, power to decide whether a developer gets approval. Any state law which establishes “the zoning ordinance shall” or “must be permitted by planning board” is dictating what towns are obligated to do. “Shall” and “must” are not optional terms – they are mandates. This is the elimination of local control – plain and simple.  

Furthermore, according to this bill, once our town meets the state's goal of having 10% of all housing in East Greenwich be affordable, we will still be required to build 25% of all new housing as affordable under inclusionary zoning laws. So, in essence, the total 10% goal set for municipalities is an ever-moving target. In addition, the law states that for every affordable unit that a developer builds, the town must allow them to build two more houses at market rate. Why should the state decide how many units are built in East Greenwich? There may come a time when every farm and large parcel in our town is sold to developers to take advantage of these laws that we have no local power to restrict. 

Senator Bridget Valverde also voted in favor of this bill when it moved to the Senate. And if the East Greenwich Town Council is working closely with Rep. Caldwell, as she stated, then they are not effectively advocating for you either. Ask yourself, are the leaders East Greenwich voted to represent them working in your best interests? Reach out to us at info@egrtc.org and let us know. And look for future posts about your legislators’ voting records.

Division Road 410-Unit Development

The Problems

(March 16, 2023) The 410-unit residential development proposed for Division Road between Westfield Drive and Moosehorn Road by Developer Ned Capozzi is progressing to the next stage in the approval process. The EGRTC is extremely concerned about this development for the following reasons:

• Because of our state affordable housing laws, our local control will be circumvented by the State Housing Appeals Board. According to EG News, "Capozzi has applied for what’s known as a 'comprehensive permit,' where in exchange for offering at least 25 percent of the plan as deed-restricted affordable housing units, the developer gets a density bonus. The General Assembly made this law to promote more affordable housing, removing some local regulatory oversight in the process."

• It would add hundreds of new students to our schools, but RIDE won't allow us to project our population needs beyond the next five years. This means that our brand new schools will soon be overcrowded. 

• Our town must bear the financial burden of the increased need for fire and police services. 

• Hundreds of cars will be added to the area's daily traffic patterns which are already becoming congested, especially at the intersection of Division and Rte. 2.

• No accommodation is being made regarding the impact on wildlife or loss of green space.

Here are some recent articles which explain more about this development:

https://eastgreenwichnews.com/division-road-project-back-on-track/

https://eastgreenwichnews.com/410-unit-division-road-project-secures-water-sewer/

Proposed Solutions

(March 16, 2023) Senator Gordon Rogers, of District 21 which includes Coventry, Foster, Scituate, West Greenwich, has formed a coalition of rural RI communities which are working together to fight state overreach and developer abuse of our affordable housing laws (https://www.valleybreeze.com/news/rogers-to-form-coalition-of-rural-communities-to-combat-overreaching-state-zoning/article_c2cf4e0c-95fc-11ed-9c08-3b86eb68b20b.html).

Our Republican candidates for Town Council in 2022 offered other creative solutions to help ameliorate this problem. https://eastgreenwichnews.com/affordable-housing-egs-town-council-hands-are-not-tied/ Although none of our candidates were elected, it is still important to stay engaged and ask your local leaders what they are doing to solve this problem.

What can you do? 

• Attend the Planning Board Meeting scheduled for April 19th at 7:00 PM. Location will likely be in Swift Gym, but check back for updates.

• Write to the EG Town Council to ask them to join Senator Rogers' coalition to push back against the state and regain local control of our town planning. 

• Write to members of the EG Planning Board to ask them to deny approval for this development.

• Write to our State Representative and State Senator to persuade them to amend affordable housing laws that remove local control. 

• Join us for our April 17 EGRTC meeting at Safehouse Restaurant at 6:30 PM to hear from Senator Rogers, who will be our guest speaker. 

East Greenwich Town Council

Mark Schwager
Council President, Democrat
mschwager@eastgreenwichri.com

Michael Donegan
Council Vice President, Democrat
mdonegan@eastgreenwichri.com

Caryn Corenthal
Council Member, Democrat
ccorenthal@eastgreenwichri.com

Renu Englehart
Council Member, Democrat
renglehart@eastgreenwichri.com

Michael Zarrella
Council Member, Democrat
mzarrella@eastgreenwichri.com

East Greenwich Planning Board
https://eastgreenwichri.com/DocumentCenter/View/1415/Boards-and-Commissions-Membership-May-5-2023-PDF?bidId=

State Senator Bridget Valverde, Democrat
sen-valverde@rilegislature.gov

State Representative Justine Caldwell, Democrat
rep-caldwell@rilegislature.gov

East Greenwich School Building Bond Referendum

Reason #1 to Attend Building Subcommittee Forums: Their Math is Wrong

(March 4, 2023) Option C*, which the subcommittee seems to be favoring, has a price tag of $130M, not the $120M they have been advertising since last year. Apparently their math is wrong, and none of our elected officials, town employees, or even the builder noticed it until we brought it to their attention. This means that the tax impact for this option, which was shared with the Town Council in February, cannot be accurate either. Taxpayers are not being given accurate information about the cost of this project and the impact it will have on family budgets. 

The School Building Oversight Subcommittee has planned two community forums on March 21 & March 30, at 5:30 PM, at Cole Middle School (in addition to PTG meetings) in which they will share the three options* they are considering for the construction and renovation of our schools. Please consider these concerns and make your voice known.

*Please note that the subcommittee has since modified their options and corrected their error, in addition to raising the prices of all options on the table. See Reason #5 for more information. 

Reason #2 to Attend Building Subcommittee Community Forums: Does "Newer and Fewer" Mean Better?

(March 7, 2023)- RIDE's vision for schools is "Newer and Fewer," and it is incentivizing districts to close older school buildings and consolidate students into fewer buildings. The School Building Oversight Subcommittee has planned two community forums on March 21 & March 30, at 5:30 PM, at Cole Middle School (in addition to PTG meetings) in which they will share the three options they are considering for the construction and renovation of our schools. Please consider these concerns and make your voice known:

• There has not been an option associated with any proposal to keep Eldredge as a school. Our Building Subcommittee simply says it would be “too expensive." The community should be given an opportunity to assess an OPTION #4 that incorporates Eldredge in the bond. Let’s hear the cost of that, the logistics, see a rendering, and let the voters decide if this option is too expensive. 

• The closing of Eldredge would mean the end of walkability to this neighborhood school. Instead, students would be bussed to the other side of town.

• The construction of a new K-5 Frenchtown Elementary would bring an excessive amount of traffic to the west side of town. Has a traffic study been done post-COVID?

• Our superintendent claims that students cannot be properly educated for the "21st century" in Eldredge. Where is the research to support this?

• No matter which option our School Committee chooses, our schools will be overcrowded in a few short years since RIDE won't allow us to project our spacing needs beyond the next five years. The 410+ unit development that is being fast-tracked on Division Street will add hundreds of new students to our district, and they are not accounted for in any of these options.

By June, the School Committee will be voting to approve one of those options, and a bond referendum will be voted on by taxpayers in the fall. NOW IS THE TIME to share your concerns and ask your questions before the impact on your family is irreversible.

Reason #3 to Attend Building Subcommittee Community Forums: The Choice of Colliers Engineering & Design

(March 8, 2023) Did you know that the School Building Oversight Subcommittee chose Colliers Engineering & Design to handle our district's proposed school construction and renovations? Let's take a closer look at this decision:

• Colliers (formerly Strategic Building Solutions) also managed the Cole Middle School project which resulted in a five year lawsuit for the town by homeowners in the adjacent Sarah's Trace development who suffered damage to their homes costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in repair. 

• Colliers handled the design of the brand new $49 million Henry J. Winters Elementary School in Pawtucket which recently suffered so much damage due to burst pipes on two separate occasions that the school had to be shut down, and students had to move to distance learning. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/education/2023/02/26/another-burst-pipe-closes-pawtuckets-winters-elementary-school-monday/69946035007/

• Watch this interview with the Pawtucket School Committee Chair in which he explains the effect of this damage on this school community: Preview YouTube video Pawtucket School Committee Chair Jim Challel & Facilities Chair Joanne Bonollo Take Media Questions!Pawtucket School Committee Chair Jim Challel & Facilities Chair Joanne Bonollo Take Media Questions!

• Colliers is not the only build/design firm operating in Rhode Island. Others include DBVW, Pare, DiPrete, and Odeh. 

• Although our School Committee often speaks about transparency and community buy-in, the decision by the Building Subcommittee to choose Colliers does not appear in any meeting minutes. A meeting by several members of the subcommittee on January 3rd was not open to the public and excluded its two community members. It avoided an Open Meetings Act violation by meeting just one member shy of a quorum. 

The School Building Oversight Subcommittee has planned two community forums on March 21 & March 30, at 5:30 PM, at Cole Middle School (in addition to PTG meetings) in which they will share the options they are considering for the construction and renovation of our schools. By June, the School Committee will be voting to approve one of those options, and a bond referendum will be voted on by taxpayers in the fall. NOW IS THE TIME to share your concerns and ask your questions before the impact on your family is irreversible.

Reason #4 to Attend Building Subcommittee Meetings: Timing

(March 11, 2023) Did you know that our School Committee plans to vote on which building/renovation option our district will use by June? That is so RIDE can approve our plans, and the state can prepare the bond referendum that EG residents will vote on this November. Let's look at the issue of timing and how that has affected your ability to have a say in these decisions:

• Despite multiple requests to make their meetings more accessible, the Building Subcommittee meets on weekday mornings, making it difficult for students and working people, including teachers, to attend.  

• The decision to decommission Eldredge Elementary was made before holding any community forums to elicit feedback from taxpayers. 

• No subcommittee meetings were held between mid-September to mid-January, much of which coincided with campaign season. *Please note that we have corrected our error regarding meeting dates. We had previously stated that no meetings were held in August or September. This is not accurate. However, those meeting minutes cannot be found on the webpage for the Building Subcommittee, where one would expect to locate them, and can only be found on the Secretary of State website. 

• Now the Building Subcommittee is strapped for time and must quickly seek community buy-in. 

• For an explanation of all options being considered by our subcommittee, including costs, go to https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d3TN4o6swhlJ1ne-s6I-C6P2eoQNFY2K

The School Building Oversight Subcommittee has planned two community forums on March 21 & March 30, at 5:30 PM, at Cole Middle School. NOW IS THE TIME to share your concerns and ask your questions before the impact on your family is irreversible.

Reason #5 to Attend Building Subcommittee Community Forums: Cost

(March 14, 2023) There's no question that our schools need work. But how much will the school bond cost your family? Since our message dated March 4, the School Building Subcommittee has already increased its estimates for school construction/renovations, and added some options.

• On February 27, the Town Council shared real estate tax models that projected annual increases for the town’s needs plus projected annual increases associated with an $80M, a $100M, and a $120M school building project. 

• On March 7, the building subcommittee updated the costs of the building proposals to no less than $130M. So the highest tax implication per EG taxpayer presented in February became the lowest likely scenario just eight days later. 

• According to our town finance manager's presentation, these are the tax implications at a $120M project:
  Residents owning a $500K (assessed value) home would see their real estate tax bill rise from an estimated $11,022 in 2024 to an estimated $14,331 in 2035. 

• That is an increase of more than $22,000 in total real estate tax payments between 2025 and 2035.

• Residents owning a $750K (assessed value) home would see their real estate tax bill rise from an estimated $16,510 in 2024 to an estimated $21,466 in 2035. 

• That is an increase of more than $33,000 in total real estate tax payments between 2025 and 2035.

• If the School Committee votes to put forward a $150 million bond, those numbers will be substantially higher. We await updated tax impact figures from the town finance manager. 

Don't miss your opportunity to have a say about the impact this decision will have on your family budget. The School Building Oversight Subcommittee has planned two community forums on March 21 & March 30, at 5:30 PM, at Cole Middle School. NOW IS THE TIME to share your concerns and ask your questions before the impact on your family is irreversible.