A vote ‘yes’ supports the district funding Proposition 1 of the Capital Project — which was approved back in December — with a 1.9% tax increase, while the other costs of operating the district will have no additional tax impact.

A vote “no” is a vote for more substantial cuts to the district in order to combat increased needs and rising costs across the board.

If the latest budget fails, a contingent budget will take effect, eliminating any potential tax increase and forcing even more cuts from the district to meet its increasing needs. The district would be forced to fund its necessary Capital improvements through more cuts to staffing, equipment, and extracurricular activities.

“We encourage everyone to participate, have their voice heard, and vote on June 17,” Superintendent Dr. Brad Zilliox said. “Once again, the district is attempting to balance the educational needs, programs, and services for our students with a cost our community can accept.”

OBSERVER Photo by Braden Carmen Fredonia Business Administrator John Forbes discussed the 2025-26 School Budget proposal at a recent Board of Education meeting.

The updated budget for the Tuesday re-vote carries a total amount of $38,193,800. That figure is a decrease of over $142,000 from the budget proposal that was rejected on May 20, along with a reduction in state aid on top of that. The new budget carries a 1.9% tax increase, stemming from Proposition 1 of the Capital Project that was already approved in December.

After voters rejected a 2.59% tax levy increase in the initial vote, the district was also hit with $23,800 less in New York State aid than it anticipated. Absorbing that blow while also reducing the tax levy increase to 1.9% resulted in $166,000 of cuts from the budget voted on last month.

Voters are now being asked to approve a 1.9% tax levy increase, which for the average home in the district amounts to an extra $63 per year – $5.25 per month.

— — —

Fredonia has been criticized for its spending practices by several public speakers in the past year, including outgoing Board member Brian Aldrich, a former Board President. However, when it comes to school taxes, the district has a track record of consistently asking for less than the state would allow. This year marks the 14th straight year that Fredonia is at or below the tax cap. The district’s average tax levy increase over the past five years is 1.57%.

While the district is now proposing a 1.9% tax levy increase this year, the costs the district is absorbing this year far surpass that figure.

The proposed budget of $38,193,800 is 4.85% higher than the 2024-25 School Budget. The increased cost of salaries and benefits to the district in the upcoming year is 4.16% higher than the previous year. Salaries and benefits amount to nearly 70% of the overall budget.

The total tax levy of $17,486,255 amounts to 45.78% of the proposed budget, while $19,355,758 of state aid covers more than 50% of the total budget. The district will receive an increase of $1,465,811 in New York state aid this upcoming year from what it received in the 2024-25 School Budget.

— — —

Back in December, Fredonia’s three-part Capital Project proposal drew a crowd of voters like the district has never seen before. As a result of that vote, Proposition 1 — titled “Warm, Safe, and Dry” pertaining to critical maintenance improvements — passed by a margin of 980 to 768. Proposition 2 pertaining to the music department and Proposition 3 pertaining to athletics were both rejected. Proposition 1 carried a tax levy increase of 1.9% to fund the work.

The first budget put out to voters included that 1.9% increase, along with an additional 0.69% tax increase for a total tax levy increase of 2.59%. The budget was rejected by a narrow margin of 472-414.

In an attempt to change enough minds for the budget to pass in a re-vote, Fredonia made more cuts — including two teaching positions and summer school programming for grades K-8. The latest proposal includes no additional tax impact on top of the 1.9% tax increase that voters approved to fund Proposition 1 of the Capital Project.

The 1.9% increase proposed by the district for the re-vote would be utilized entirely to fund the Capital Project improvements from Proposition 1 passing back in December. Items on the to-do list include repairs and/or replacement of aging infrastructure such as roofing, mechanical, electrical, and heating systems. The other costs of the district that have increased from the previous year would be absorbed by the increased aid from the state, along with the district’s fund balance.

The district will receive 82.7% of state aid as a reimbursement for the Capital improvements, but that money will come in subsequent years. As it pertains to this year’s budget, the district will be absorbing a portion of the costs of the work. The 1.9% increase — which voters signed off on back in December — would cover that cost.

Now that the budget has failed, however, the district is in an even more difficult position than if it were rejected in any typical year. If the budget is rejected a second time, the state requires the district to reduce its tax levy increase to 0%. However, the Capital improvements will not be what is cut if the district is forced to eliminate any tax increase.

“Our position is that this is critical work and needs to move forward,” Zilliox said.

Because of the fact that the district has already committed to doing the work laid out in Proposition 1 of the Capital Project — which was deemed essential for the safety of students and staff in the district — the district would need to find other areas to make up the 1.9% increase that it is asking for. The district would essentially be cutting “below zero” because of how much ground it would need to make up to fund a project that was not included in previous budgets.

“The community needs to know that we can’t operate at zero. That’s not how life works,” Board of Education member Aaron Marshall said. “… We need to have more money to function.”

Marshall later referenced previous comments from district parents who claimed the Board was holding students hostage as they demanded the district support a modified flag football program, despite its financial struggles.

“It feels as though our community is holding our students hostage with this budget,” Marshall said.

Board President Steve Johnston disagreed with Marshall, stating, “I don’t feel like our community is holding our students hostage. I disagree with that.”

Johnston urged voters to view the district as a separate entity from the village of Fredonia in the wake of the village’s 65% property tax increase.

— — —

Business Administrator John Forbes initially presented a budget with a proposed tax levy increase of 2.99%, which was still comfortably below the tax cap. However, the Board pushed Forbes to reduce that figure even lower. The special meeting recessed to allow Forbes to make additional cuts in real time to present the Board with a budget that featured a 2.59% tax increase. Brian Aldrich was the only member of the Board who voted against that proposal.

On the night of the vote, May 20, voters decided 2.59% was too much to stomach, even though 1.9% of that figure was designed for the district’s most crucial maintenance in Proposition 1 of the Capital Project. The district has now gone through another round of cuts, first from 2.99% to 2.59%, and now down to 1.9%.

With each round of cuts, it has been difficult for the district to determine what needs to go. The district was hesitant to reduce staff, but has now conceded by cutting two positions — a high school teaching position that will not be replaced after a retirement and a middle school computer teacher position that is being eliminated.

If a state-mandated contingent budget takes effect, an additional $326,000 will need to be cut from the general fund, in addition to the $166,000 that was already cut to drop the increase to 1.9% from 2.59%. To meet that mark, an additional three to four faculty/staff positions will be eliminated. That would result in fewer course offerings, a limit on student enrollment in elective courses, a higher student-to-teacher ratio, and less intervention support. The district will also need to evaluate reductions to before and after school intramurals, athletics, and/or extracurricular activities.

Additionally, no new equipment will be purchased unless directly related to academic programs or health and safety requirements. Rent will also be charged for all community organizations that utilize district facilities, including athletic fields.

— — —

Zilliox defended the district against the notion that the benefit to the community for its investment in the schools is not worth the cost. Prior to presentations from the district’s administrators covering all grade levels, Zilliox said, “I believe the return on our investment is strong. I believe that the bang for our buck is huge in terms of the money that we spend in return for great opportunities for our students.”

High School Principal Darrin Paschke took a similar stance. His presentation highlighted that Fredonia students consistently test significantly higher than the state average across several subjects. The district’s proficiency in reading, biology, earth science, algebra 1-2, geometry, history/government, and geography at the high school level are all above the state average.

Paschke also noted that the district’s AP scores are significantly higher than the national and global averages in biology, calculus, drawing/art, English language and composition, environmental science, geography, psychology, politics/government, U.S. history and world history.

Prior to his presentation, Paschke spoke as a lifetime resident of Fredonia and a graduate of the school. He voiced his support for the proposed budget and urged the community to do the same.

“I find it reprehensible to sacrifice our students’ future for short-term optics,” Paschke said. He later added, “Fredonia voters have always shown that they care deeply about education. Supporting this modest interest on June 17 is not about generosity, it’s about sustaining the very programs that earned Fredonia a reputation for excellence in the first place.”

Not everyone agrees.

Mary Deas, a retired Fredonia teacher, addressed the Board again to reiterate her opposition to a tax increase. Even after cuts have been made several times since she began addressing the Board on the matter, Deas believes the district has not cut enough. She highlighted the state aid increase from last year as reasoning for why any tax increase – even just to fund the Capital Project improvements – is not warranted.

“The answer is clear for many people. You are not making adjustments to rein in spending,” Deas said. “… You can’t keep demanding residents pay for this.”

Deas later added, “Fredonia’s poverty rate is climbing and village residents are looking at an astronomical increase in their property taxes. Considering all this, I will vote no on the budget and continue to encourage others to do the same.”

The 2025-26 School Budget revote is scheduled for Tuesday from 2 to 9 p.m., in the high school cafeteria. The next regular Board of Education meeting will take place that same night at 6, in the high school library.