School Committee Moves Forward with Single School

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA

October 24th 2025

RICHMOND – After a lengthy discussion that included comments from the public, members of the Chariho School Committee voted at the Oct. 21 meeting to choose the single, or unified elementary school option for Chariho’s Stage 2 application to the state. The application is part of the district’s five-year capital improvement plan, which is mandated by the Rhode Island Department of Education.

The roll call vote was 8 members in favor of the unified school option and 3 opposed.

School Committee Chair Louise Dinsmore,  Jessica Purcell, Karen Reynolds, and Patricia Pouliot, of Richmond, voted yes.

Hopkinton members Polly Hopkins, Larry Phelps and Dianne Tefft voted no, with Tyler Champlin voting yes.

Linda Lyall, Laura Chapman and Craig Louzon, representing Charlestown, voted yes. The fourth Charlestown member, Donna Chambers, was absent.

The Current Situation

The state of the district’s aging elementary schools has been a source of concern, and often, division between residents who want new buildings and others who want to continue to maintain the existing schools.

However, those schools are old. The Richmond, Charlestown and Ashaway schools are 90, 54 and 76 years old respectively, and the fourth school, Hope Valley Elementary, was closed in September.

In 2024, voters rejected a bond to build three new elementary schools, however, that vote notwithstanding, state law still requires Chariho to present a five-year capital plan.

RIDE will reimburse the district up to 65% of the cost of building a single, larger elementary school, if the district chooses that option.

Superintendent of Schools Gina Picard explained,

“We still do not have an elementary capital plan, which is required by state law, and when you don’t have that, then you’re only allowed to get reimbursed up to $500,000 overall for elementary facilities,” she said.

To keep and maintain the three schools, an option dubbed “warm, safe and dry,” the district would not have the option of going out to bond.

“Warm safe and dry means you need capital reserve dollars,” Picard said. “You cannot go out to bond for warm safe and dry. We do not have the capital dollars in our reserves.”

(Since 2020, the district has spent almost $6 million on maintenance at the elementary schools.)

The School Committee voted in August to hire the SLAM architectural firm and project manager, Colliers International. SLAM presented three options: One new elementary school, three new elementary schools, or major “gut” renovations to each of the three schools.

The Cost

A new, “unified” school would be the least costly of the three options, coming in at between $87 and $90 million.

Renovating the three schools is expected to cost $89 to $98 million, and building three new schools would be the most expensive, costing at least $104 million.

The above figures are for construction only and do not include infrastructure such as heating.

The three options are described in detail in SLAM’s  final report to the School Committee.

Picard described the advantages, or “operational efficiencies” of a single, new school.

“Obviously, we have less properties to manage,” she said. “We have fewer boilers, fewer kitchens, loading docks, gyms, media centers, and we’re able to then update in very specific ways versus the old infrastructure, staff not spending travelling time across buildings. Food preparation, delivery services, storage access to the amenities for all students.”

Several School Committee members, many of whom have recently toured new schools in other districts, shared their reasons for choosing the single school option.

“From a cost perspective, not just up-front costs but long term  maintenance, the one unified school definitely is much more manageable,” Pouliot said. “You’re looking at heating costs in one building, not three buildings, busing, transportation, everything is going to one building.”

Purcell said she had concerns about what would happen to the three school buildings if they were to close, but she also noted that having one elementary school would be a unifying force and a reflection of the regional district.

“One of my main driving forces in this district is that the regionality of our district is our strength,” she said. “The fact that we have come together to be one school district, that vision is what drives our success.”

Charlestown member Laura Chapman raised the possibility of bringing Grade 5 back to the elementary school, a goal shared by many parents.

“I think that the unified school, there’s certainly some benefits to it and there’s always positives and negatives in each situation,” she said. “The positives, I would say, is I’m all for moving the fifth graders back into the elementary school and I think that is something that, if can be made a priority and if it can be made a reality, we should certainly look at that as being incorporated into this option.”

Responding to a question from Dianne Tefft about the how much the bond would end up costing the district, Director of Administration and Finance Gregory Zenion provided a theoretical example of what it might cost.

“For the unified school, with a 65% reimbursement, so, on a $117 million bond, with a 65% reimbursement, you’d be paying $2,661,000 per year for 30 years,” he said.

The district would also have to buy at least 33 acres of land for the new school. Zenion has said several people had expressed a preliminary interest in selling property to the district, and the School Committee has ruled out the possibility of taking land by eminent domain – a position that members were asked to reiterate at Tuesday’s meeting.

Dinsmore said she believed that a single school would be the fiscally responsible choice.

“I think one unified school does allow us to embrace the one unified school district,” she said. “I’ve also been someone who’s been an advocate of fiscal responsibility, and every year we have town budgets that increase, we have school budgets that increase and from the data that I’m getting, it looks like, and it appears, that one unified school is the most fiscally responsible option for our district.”

The Public Weighs In

Several residents, including former Richmond council members Michael Colasante and Helen Sheehan, warned that Richmond did not have the tax base to support a large school, and children would not easily adapt to learning in large, open class spaces.

Two members of the Hopkinton Town Council, Sharon Davis and council Vice President Bob Burns said they both favored the unified school option.

“I’m not for any of it, to be honest with you, however, the further we kick this ball down the road, the further we’re going to burden our children with this deficit themselves,” Burns said. “We’re all here for our children, okay? So would you rather put the burden on your own shoulders, and suck up $300 [in additional taxes] a year?... I feel sorry for our School Committee. You have the tough - ass decisions.”

Just before 10 p.m., Champlin made a motion, seconded by Louzon, to approve the one new school option.

Reached Thursday, Picard said she had been expecting the committee to choose the unified option, especially after touring new schools and seeing how the spaces could be configured.

“I was not surprised by the vote,” she said. “Many people who once couldn’t imagine a unified school now see how, with intentional design, we can create spaces that remain intimate, collaborative, and thoughtful. Chariho is a forward-thinking district, and this decision reflects a commitment to investing in our future and focusing resources on instruction rather than aging buildings. We’ve listened to community feedback and worked to bring clarity to the fact that repairing our current schools would cost more than building new. Ultimately, this is about creating learning environments where students can truly thrive and taxpayers can see their investment as an asset.”

Residents will vote on the bond in Nov. 2026 and construction would not begin until 2027.