Hopkinton tabled resolution asking state to shift private-school bus subsidies in favor of homeless-student support

The Hopkinton Town Council debated a resolution asking the Rhode Island General Assembly to amend state law on pupil transportation so that private, nonprofit schools share in the cost of statewide transportation and a greater share of state subsidy would go to homeless students.

A council member introduced a resolution that cited Rhode Island General Laws (R.I. Gen. Laws) chapters related to pupil transportation and argued the present structure directs a subsidy to private school transportation while the state does not provide an equivalent subsidy for homeless students. The resolution text circulated at the meeting referenced R.I. Gen. Laws 16-21.1 and related provisions.

Councilors and members of the public discussed the policy's distributional effects. Councilor Roy and others questioned whether requiring private schools to share transportation costs would amount to “double dipping” for families who pay local school taxes and private‑school tuition. Resident Pam Denon described how other communities contract with bus companies and charge families (she cited Warwick examples) and urged the council to examine alternatives and possible family subsidies if the town were to change policy: “I would just encourage you to maybe look around and see what's happening in other communities,” she said.

Council discussion also focused on the underlying numbers. Councilors asked how the figure of roughly $800,000 in private‑school transportation costs for Cherry Hill was calculated and whether the state bills by student rather than by bus. Staff and councilors noted the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns had circulated material supporting a reallocation of subsidies; an email from the League and a summary from the Cherry Hill superintendent were on the agenda packet.

Given outstanding questions on the headcount, per‑student cost and the bus logistics, a council member moved to table the resolution so staff could obtain more precise figures from the school administration and the League of Cities and Towns. The motion to table carried; recorded votes included James, Davis and Roy in favor. Council staff agreed to schedule follow-up work (the council referenced March 3 as a target date to revisit the item) and to seek details on how many students and buses would be affected and the composition of the $800,000 estimate.

Ending: The council did not adopt the resolution on Feb. 18; it was tabled for the sponsor and staff to bring back detailed cost and operational data and to coordinate with the League of Cities and Towns and Cherry Hill School District representatives.