Chariho school bond debate paused after heated exchange over one‑third cost split

The Cherry Hill (Chariho) Regional School Committee spent the longest portion of its Feb. 10 meeting debating how a proposed school bond should allocate construction costs among the district’s three towns.

Member Diane Tefft moved to add language to the proposed municipal bill that would require Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton to each pay one‑third of the debt service for a new unified elementary school. The motion drew immediate pushback from Charlestown officials and several committee members who said the district’s governing Chariho Act sets cost‑sharing according to student enrollment.

Deb Carney, president of the Charlestown Town Council, said Charlestown represents about 23% of the district’s students and would face a roughly $250,000 annual increase under an equal one‑third split. “We are not going to sit by and allow you to subject us to paying a third when that is not what the Chariho Act requires,” she said, adding that Charlestown would “vehemently oppose” any attempt to alter the statutory formula without the town’s agreement.

Bond counsel and the district’s advisers warned that the General Assembly has final authority over municipal bills; the committee can request particular language but the state legislature and local representatives ultimately decide whether a bill is enacted or altered. Counsel also cautioned that some structural proposals—such as issuing sequential 10‑ or 15‑year tranches with different allocation rules—would increase issuance costs and might be hard to market to investors.

After more than an hour of questions, public comment and back‑and‑forth among elected town officials, the member who had proposed the one‑third language withdrew the motion and instead moved to table the amendment. The committee voted to table further changes so town councils could review the proposal and bond counsel could prepare limited, costed options for consideration. Counsel was asked to provide narrowly framed legal scenarios rather than an open-ended survey of possibilities to limit additional legal expense.

The underlying bond draft that prompted the discussion remains in place. Counsel said the current draft authorizes the district to issue a not‑to‑exceed bond (preliminarily estimated at about $110,200,000) to finance a unified elementary school and related work; language allowing limited Switch Road campus improvements was retained for flexibility but may be removed if the committee prefers tighter scope.

Next steps: bond counsel will return with focused structural options and cost estimates; the committee will allow town councils time to review and provide feedback before resuming the bond‑language debate.