We weren’t given the last bite, I guess, of the apple.”

Mary McDowell, Portsmouth Town Council

If you wanted to continue to take so-called ‘bites of the apple’ without this getting on the ballot the way it was written, well you had your chance to do that prior to sending me a resolution and asking me for a bill, which passed.”

Sen. Linda Ujifusa

PORTSMOUTH — A discussion over proposed major school building improvements turned into a lengthy debate Tuesday night over how the process unfolded — and whether the town council had been given the opportunity to weigh in before the question reaches the November ballot.

The discussion lasted well over an hour, with council member Mary McDowell repeatedly questioning whether the council had been given the “last bite of the apple” it had expected to have before the bond question was finalized.

Several other speakers, however, pushed back on that characterization, saying the process was clearly laid out in state law and the legislation authorizing Portsmouth to put the bond question before voters.

In January, the council unanimously approved the district’s Stage 2 submission to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), seeking eligibility for state reimbursement for more than $40 million in school construction and renovation projects. On Tuesday, school leaders returned to the council to present the Stage 2 approval and proposed school capital projects.

The proposed projects approved by the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education total about $40.41 million and include $29.23 million in work at Portsmouth Middle School, $8.87 million at Portsmouth High School, $1.32 million at Hathaway Elementary School and $988,706 at Melville Elementary School. The projects are eligible for a minimum 35% state reimbursement, with bond financing allowing the town to receive reimbursement for both principal and interest.

As part of the discussion, McDowell raised questions about the bond process and the financial and project information available to the council and the public. McDowell said she believed there was confusion about what would happen after the council approved the resolution.

“The project will certainly improve the learning environment,” McDowell said, while adding that she had understood the council would have another discussion about which projects should move forward.

Council’s discretion

Council President Keith Hamilton had previously told councilors, she said, that it would ultimately be up to them to determine what went before voters. McDowell pointed to the introduction of House Bill 8488 on April 29, which came shortly after those discussions.

“We weren’t given the last bite, I guess, of the apple,” she said.

Hamilton acknowledged only that he had expected Tuesday’s presentation by school leaders to happen earlier — in June or July. Superintendent Elizabeth Viveiros said the school department was prepared to present the projects to the council but had been waiting for the council to schedule the discussion.

Hamilton also stressed the $41 million figure is a ceiling, not a commitment to borrow that amount. The council’s resolution authorized the town to seek voter approval for borrowing of up to $41 million, he said, with the paring down of the projects to happen afterward. The council could decide to do just the middle school roof initially and undertake other projects later.

“Maybe we do just the roof now,” Hamilton said, suggesting that the town could ultimately borrow far less than $41 million. The town could, for example, borrow about $10.9 million for the middle school roof and wait several years before undertaking other projects.

“We’re not taking out a $41 million bond,” Hamilton said.

Ujifusa weighs in

Sen. Linda Ujifusa, D-Portsmouth, who sponsored the legislation in the General Assembly, offered perhaps the sharpest response to McDowell’s concerns.

“The process that you went through is not that complicated,” Ujifusa said. The council passed a resolution, gave it to her, and she introduced the legislation, which was passed by the General Assembly.

“And to say that you were somehow misled? I’m not exactly sure what you mean about not having another bite at the apple,” she said.

The legislation had to pass during the General Assembly’s January-to-June session for the question to appear on the November ballot and preserve the opportunity for state reimbursement, Ujifusa said.

“If you wanted to continue to take so-called ‘bites of the apple’ without this getting on the ballot the way it was written, well you had your chance to do that prior to sending me a resolution and asking me for a bill, which passed,” she said.

Ujifusa later added: “I don’t want the public to be misled that there was any kind of misleading done about what the process was; it’s very straightforward.”

McDowell clarified she was not challenging the legality of the process. Rather, she said, she was referring to the discussions that had taken place among council members about having another opportunity to discuss the projects.

Town Registrar Jacqueline Schulz also defended the process.

“The canvassing office was perfectly aware of every process and when it needed to be done, and how it needed to be worded,” Schulz said. The wording of the bond question, she said, comes directly from the legislation passed by the General Assembly.

“All of the processes are spelled out,” Schulz said. “They’re spelled out in Title 17, they’re spelled out in the legislation. I’m confused by the confusion, actually.”

Former council member and state legislator Charles Levesque, speaking remotely, likewise said the process was standard. A council resolution authorizing a maximum amount is essentially a “wish list,” he said, which is followed by legislative approval, bond counsel review and placement of the question on the ballot.

“Every single project will have to be approved by this council before you actually borrow the money,” Levesque said. “No commitment has been made to spend a dime yet.”

Cash vs. bond funds

Hamilton noted one qualification: Not every project necessarily has to return to the council if the school department can pay for a smaller project with cash rather than bond funds.

Some residents nevertheless said they wanted more information before voting.

Tom Grieb of Thayer Drive said voters need to know what the debt service would be and what the bond would mean for taxpayers.

“Anybody making a decision on the ballot question really needs to know what it’s going to cost,” Grieb said.

Hamilton said the town would provide an estimate at its next meeting, while cautioning that it would not be precise because the town has not decided how much it will ultimately borrow.

Meanwhile, Viveiros said the school department plans to hold community forums on the proposed school bond in the coming weeks. Information about those meetings was expected to be posted on the school department’s website Wednesday.

The immediate priority is the replacement of the Portsmouth Middle School roof, which is targeted for summer 2027 and would require funding to be available by late winter or early spring of that year.

But Tuesday night’s discussion made clear that the $41 million figure on the ballot should not be interpreted as a commitment to undertake all of the projects at once — or even to borrow $41 million.

As Hamilton put it: “There are still a number of bites at the apple.”