To the editor:

My current best understanding is that the new high school building committee intends to spend as much as $186 million to build the new Bristol Warren High School and to achieve the repairs and renovations on the other elementary schools. Also, Superintendent Anna Riley intends to close the Gutierrez School and move its students to other schools.

Voters approved a school bond referendum that would borrow an amount not to exceed $200 million with the expectation that the state might reimburse 83 percent of the borrowed amount. Thus, taxpayers’ shared property tax rate would be increased to pay their town’s share of the unreimbursed borrowed amount or $34 million (17 percent of $200 million).

(As an aside, I will believe the 83% state reimbursement only when I see it.)

However, the state did not approve the $200 million bond amount. It capped the borrowing at $157 million. Assuming the state’s reimbursement would remain unchanged, namely, 83 percent, then the taxpayers would see a property tax impact of $27 million (17% of $157 million).

Clearly, the impact on the towns’ property tax rate would be less burdensome by the difference between the unreimbursed amounts of $34 million and $27 million or $7 million paid over 30 years.

But, as I understand the intentions of the building committee, it is planning on a third spending option to accomplish what they consider to be desirable for the new high school construction. And that is the basis of my confusion and concern.

I have raised these matters at previous school building committee meetings but have not been satisfied with the explanations provided to me that all was right.

If $186 million is actually spent by the building committee, the state reimbursement amount would not change. It would still only be 83 percent of $157 million or $27 million to be borne by taxpayers. The difference between the $157 million capped borrowing amount and the $186 million intended to be spent is $29 million. None of that difference would be reimbursed by the state. All of it (100 percent) would fall on the taxpayers and the property tax rate to pay.

By my calculations, this third option would require taxpayers to absorb into their property tax rate a burden of $56 million dollars, which is significantly greater than the unreimbursed share of $27 and even greater than the $34 million unreimbursed amount had the referendum bond amount of $200 million been approved by the state.

I would like to have anyone knowledgeable in finance and the bonding process and who is totally objective clarify my confusion and confirm that my concern is justified or explain why my concern is unfounded.

Peter Hewett
Wendy Drive