“What we’ve tried to do is listen to the feedback from the community, take that into account and process, what is it the community is asking of us; what is it that we think our students deserve; and what could this look like in a capital project,” Superintendent Dr. Brad Zilliox said.

But now that the news has circulated around the village, residents who had not yet spoken up took their turn to offer a different perspective.

More than 20 minutes of public comments were heard at a recent Board of Education meeting from Fredonia school community members, with several of the speakers being opposed to the potential tax increase that comes with a substantial capital project.

“While everything you are proposing is good, I feel that at this point in time, it’s too expensive. It’s the wrong time to do such a huge project,” said district resident Charlene Ryder.

District resident Joe Andrasik recently spoke out against the proposed capital project at the Fredonia Central School District.

WHAT THE PROJECT ENTAILS

The district is considering a capital project with three propositions on the ballot for a December vote. The first proposition refers to what the district calls “warm, safe and dry” areas of concern. Initially, the district received a recommendation of approximately $50 million of necessary work to maintain its buildings. After conducting roof scans to further evaluate the needs and prioritizing the most urgent issues, the District is proposing $22.1 million of maintenance in the first of three proposals.

As previously reported by the OBSERVER, more than $15 million of the building maintenance needs are located at the main campus, including over $7 million in roofing improvements only pertaining to the most dire areas of the roofs. Mechanical system upgrades of $4.73 million and electrical system upgrades of $3.54 million are also deemed necessary to do within the next capital project, with less pressing needs potentially pushed back to one of the two upcoming projects down the road.

The first proposition carries a 1.9% tax increase, beginning in 2025-2026. The tax increase is non-compounding, staying level each year moving forward. The district anticipates 77% of state aid for the first proposition, with capital reserve funds, retiring debt service, and the 1.9% increase covering the remaining 23% of work that is not covered by state aid.

The second proposition the district aims to propose is to address the music department needs for enhanced education and performance spaces.

Planned renovations for the music department spaces include a 1,930 square foot band room, a 1,200 square foot space for the orchestra, and a 930 square foot space for the chorus. Also included are five offices or group spaces and five practice rooms. The renovations to accommodate the music department will be done within the existing footprint of the campus, which will not impact the district’s state aid calculations.

The improvements are necessary due to the growing music program enrollment in recent years. Despite district enrollment figures showing a slight decline, music department enrollment is higher than ever. Currently, 604 students are participating in non-mandated ensembles from fourth through 12th grades, which represents an increase of 218 additional students since 2010. As stated in the recent presentation from Young and Wright, if Proposition 2 were to not pass, the district would potentially need to limit student participation in ensembles.

If the district’s music spaces are expanded and enhanced through the current proposition, the project will cost $10 million in total, with 78% of the work covered by state aid. The remaining 22% of work would require a 1.1% tax increase, following the same parameters of the first proposition. Proposition 2 is contingent on Proposition 1 passing, meaning the total impact of both passing would be a 3% tax increase, in line with the increase to the 2023-2024 budget increase less than two years prior to the proposed vote this upcoming December.

Andy Bennett, Fredonia band director, reiterated his sentiment from previous meetings he has also attended, as both a district employee and resident.

“I do not envy you with the decisions to come,” Bennett said.

Bennett said that while he is grateful for the district’s ability to accommodate so many students in music education as possible, the Music Department and the district have “run out of ideas” short of expanding the music spaces.

“I’m very glad that we were all able to work together to try to be as fiscally responsible as possible,” Bennett said. “… I’m glad that for the project to serve our 900 students, we are only asking for a 1% tax increase.”

But while school community taxpayers have already approved a 3% increase in recent years, the proposed increase more than triples with the third proposition.

Proposition 3 focuses on athletic facilities upgrades, centered around a $17.7 million multi-purpose, synthetic turf athletic complex on the land behind the main campus. The proposition also includes tennis court replacement and decommissioning costs of the Orange Bowl. The total cost of Proposition 3 is $19.6 million.

The multi-purpose complex will be usable for baseball, softball, football and soccer games, with baseball and softball fields separated enough to allow for games to be held simultaneously. Grand stand bleachers will be installed, along with a press box, goal posts, dugouts, backstops, portable bleachers and portable fences for baseball and softball. The complex would also feature a sound system. Parking will be available for 150 vehicles and approximately 1,000 guests can be accommodated at any given time. However, a concession stand and restroom facility would not be included.

The issue for Fredonia is that Proposition 3 is contingent on the first two proposals passing before its own fate will be decided. Because of that, by the time Proposition 3 is addressed, Fredonia will have already used up most of its state aid cap space. Of the $19.6 million required for Proposition 3, only 29% will be eligible for state aid, compared to over 75% of the work in the first two propositions. To cover the remaining 71% of work, the District would need to add an additional 6.9% tax increase on top of the 3% tax hike attached to the first two propositions, which totals a 9.9% increase for all three propositions to pass.

“At the end of the day, we are in that mindset of ‘go big or go home.’ We are in that mindset of ‘give our students what they deserve’ in terms of creating a proposed capital project,” Zilliox said. “We recognize that it will be up to the school community to decide.”

Young and Wright shared figures to put those increased into perspective. For a home in Pomfret, the increase for all three proposals to pass requires an increase of $12.77 per $1,000 of assessed property value. For a home valued at $100,000 in assessed property value in the town of Pomfret, all three propositions passing would mean an increase of $1,277 per year over the next 15 years.

The tax rate increase for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 to pass without Proposition 3 would be $3.97 per $1,000 in assessed property value in the town of Pomfret. For a home valued at $100,000 in assessed property value in the town of Pomfret, the annual increase over the next 15 years would be $397. Those figures are all dramatically lower in the surrounding areas outside of Pomfret. The tax increases for residents of Arkwright, Portland, Sheridan, and Dunkirk are all less than half of what the increase is for Pomfret residents.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION

Several residents spoke to the burden that a project of this magnitude would add to residents of the village of Fredonia and the town of Pomfret. With water rates already skyrocketing and a sizable deficit in the village’s finances, school taxes increasing by nearly 10% before the school budget is even set for the next year feels like too much for some residents to support.

Fredonia resident Kathleen Dennison, a former budget director for Chautauqua County, spoke out against the proposed increases. Dennison stated the current Chautauqua County budget for capital improvements is approximately $120 million, which she said equates to about $1,000 per resident. She compared that to the District’s proposal, which she said equates to approximately $35,000 per student.

“The county would have to do what they are doing 35 times to do what you’re proposing, and that’s not going to happen,” Dennison said. “… I think the proposal is too big and too costly.”

Dennison also acknowledged she regularly votes against school budgets, dating back about 20 years.

“I don’t do that because I’m against children or I’m against education. I do it because I think there’s too many school districts in Chautauqua County,” Dennison said. “… Being a budget professional, I know that it is not financially responsible to support all of those districts.”

Dennison later took a shot at the district’s philosophy of taking a big swing at a capital project. She said, “I think instead of ‘go big or go home’, we need to consolidate or go home.”

Resident Joe Andrasik urged the District to “do more with less,” a philosophy he claimed he learned while working at a steel plant. He claimed “school districts get too much what they want.”

Andrasik supported the first proposition, stating, “I agree fixing roofs, you have to do that.” He later seemingly supported the second proposition for music department needs, as well. But when it came to the jump from 3% to nearly 10% for athletic facilities, that appeared to be the breaking point.

“You’ve got to remember there are other taxes that residents, like myself, have to pay,” Andrasik said. “… It’s a lot of pressure on people.”

Andrasik said he spoke on behalf of “the people that don’t want to come because they feel they don’t have a chance.”

Resident Helen Ihasz later urged the district to emphasize the importance of public feedback more when it comes to the project.

Since the recent comments of residents, the district has distributed a survey to its school community to solicit feedback regarding each proposal. The district previously sent out more general surveys twice within the past year, along with hosting several public meetings to solicit public feedback. The survey can also be found online at the Fredonia Central School District website and its Facebook page.