From public comments dating back several years to open forums, workshops, audits, scans, surveys and presentations, the Fredonia Central School District has been compiling information regarding an upcoming capital project.

The District is now digesting its most extensive report from the public on what is realistic for the District to pursue.

In recent weeks, the District surveyed the public regarding three propositions that were prepared for a potential vote in December. The District wanted to gauge how likely each proposition would be to pass before officially putting it out to voters, along with receiving feedback to assist in the District’s process moving forward.

As far as the District is concerned, the results were very positive. Nearly 600 people responded to the survey, when in previous surveys, the District had around 200-300 responses. The voting breakdown for each proposal is as follows:

Proposition 1, titled Warm, Safe, and Dry, received 82% approval in the survey. Proposition 2, pertaining to enhanced and expanded music education spaces, received 62% approval in the survey. The third and final proposition, centered around the construction and installation of a multi-purpose athletic facility, hovered around 50-50 throughout the weeks the survey was open, ending at 47.4% in favor of the proposition.

Of those who took the survey, 49.7% of the respondents were parents, 43.1% were residents of the District who are not parents, and 6.9% were employees of the District.

Alyssa Catlin, Associate of Young and Wright, told the Board of Education in a workshop prior to a recent Board of Education meeting that she expected more of a drop off after Proposition 2, but with Proposition 3 nearly a toss up, the District is likely to proceed with putting it out for a vote. A final decision on whether to proceed will likely come at the next meeting later this month.

A reason for Proposition 3 receiving the lowest figure is that it represents the largest financial commitment from taxpayers, much more than the other two propositions combined. That is because the majority of the work related to building a multi-purpose athletic complex is not eligible for State aid, while the majority of the work with the first two propositions is eligible for State aid. The District chose to put athletic facilities upgrades as the third proposition for that reason.

“In our minds, we felt it was difficult to put unaided work before aided work,” Superintendent Dr. Brad Zilliox said to explain why the music upgrades were ahead of athletic upgrades in the sequence of propositions. “… If it was reversed and the music work was somehow not aided and the athletic fields were, then the athletic fields would be second.”

Regarding Proposition 1, the District received a recommendation of approximately $50 million of necessary work to maintain its buildings, but after prioritizing the most urgent issues, the District is seeking $22.1 million of maintenance. 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 a future capital project.

The first proposition carries a 1.9% tax increase, beginning in 2025-2026. 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 calls for renovations of the music spaces, including 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. 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. Currently, 604 students are participating in non-mandated ensembles from grades four to 12, which represents an increase of 218 additional students since 2010. If Proposition 2 were to not pass, the District would potentially need to limit student participation in ensembles.

Proposition 2 by itself will cost $10 million, with 78% of the work covered by state aid. The remaining 22% of work would require a 1.1% increase, following the same parameters of the first proposition. Proposition 2 is contingent on Proposition 1 passing, meaning the total impact of both propositions would be a 3% tax increase.

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

The first two propositions would contain more than $32 million of work, but more than 75% of the work will be reimbursed by State aid. That is not the case with the third proposition, as $19.6 million of athletic facilities upgrades would only be eligible for 29% in State aid. 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.

Young and Wright presented figures that put the increase into perspective for District taxpayers. Residents of the Town of Pomfret make up 86.6% of Fredonia’s tax base. For the average home in Pomfret, according to Young and Wright’s calculations, taxpayers would be asked to pay an additional $220 for Proposition 3 to pass, on top of the $100 increase for the first two propositions to pass – $63 for Proposition 1 and $37 for Proposition 2 annually for the average home in the Town of Pomfret.

For a homeowner to calculate their own impact, representatives from Young and Wright and Municipal Solutions urged residents to review their most recent school tax bill, then add the increase in top of the figure they were billed last year – a 1.9% increase for Proposition 1; 3% for both 1 and 2; and 9.9% for all three propositions.

The 9.9% increase for all three propositions to pass is billed by Young and Wright as a one-time increase. However, the life of the project for repayment is anticipated to be 17 years. If approved, the school tax figure would increase by the approved amount beginning in 2025-2026, but would remain “built in” to the tax levy at the new increased figure moving forward, rather than going back down to what the figure was prior to the increase.

While the tax impact would be felt beginning in 2025-2026, construction on any approved projects would likely begin in the summer of 2027, with the hope of being completed by the 2027-2028 school year.

SPEAKING UP

With the athletic facilities being the biggest point of contention regarding the potential capital project vote, many of the District’s prominent coaches attended a recent Board of Education meeting. Varsity Football Coach Greg Sherlock and his sons, Justin and Jordan, who serve as assistant coaches, were in attendance. Varsity Soccer Coaches Jim Rush, the head coach of the boys team, and Cheryl Tabone, the head coach of the girls team, also attended the meeting, as did Varsity Softball Coach Jesse Beers.

Among the first to publicly advocate for athletic facilities upgrades at Board of Education meetings in recent years, Beers was first to speak at the recent meeting, reiterating safety concerns of the fields the District currently utilizes. Beers said he is ashamed that “past Boards and past administrations have ignored our athletic facilities.”

Noting little change for the better to any of the fields at the District in more than two decades of time he has spent at Fredonia, Beers said of the fields, “They are outdated, they put our kids at a competitive disadvantage, and they are just unsafe.”

Although he did not speak publicly, Athletic Director Nick Bertrando, the Varsity Boys Basketball and Girls Flag Football Head Coach was also at the meeting. He sat in the front row from the beginning of the pre-meeting workshop through the end of the regular meeting, spanning a total of three hours.

Greg Sherlock spoke to the unsafe conditions of the Orange Bowl and the liability the District could face each time a player is injured on the uneven surface. He also did not shy away from the fact that deer frequently roam the field and defecate on its surface, leaving players to question whether the brown stains on their jerseys and pants are from dirt or deer droppings.

“Go down there and walk that field sometime. It’s disgusting,” Greg Sherlock said. “Our kids are on this. … These are the facilities we have.”

Justin Sherlock spoke to his disappointment that athletic facilities were the third of three propositions, rather than being combined with the music department requests. He also credited the Board of Education for consistently approving school budgets with an increase lower than the rate of inflation. He hopes voters will keep that in mind when it comes time to vote.

“This School Board has done a fantastic job over the last decade of managing the taxpayers’ money. I think that needs to be taken into consideration, as well,” Justin Sherlock said.

Several residents have shared their hesitancy to approve such a substantial increase because of the current financial situation, both in the nation overall and closer to home in the Village of Fredonia and the Town of Pomfret. One resident who spoke out against the increase was former Brocton Central School Superintendent John Hertlein, who spent more than 40 years in the field of education and as a Fredonia Central School District resident.

“My concern is it is expensive, it really is. Proposition No. 1, absolutely not. We have to do it, and I applaud you for doing it,” Hertlein said. He then said that with his background in education and as a Superintendent, the two main goals are to make sure the facilities and school are in good condition, and to make sure they can afford to do so.

“I live in the Village. Our future of Village finances is pretty strange. I don’t know what to expect, but I know it’s not going to go down,” Hertlein said. He added water bill increases that are expected to come in the future will only make the issue worse. “The timing is really tough for the people in the Village.”

Beers said he agrees with the sentiment many residents have shared of “now is not the time” for such improvements. Beers said, “You’re right, now is not the time. Twenty years ago would have been the time. … This has been ignored. The can has been kicked down the road now for a quarter of a century.”

Tabone stressed the importance of player safety for not only Fredonia athletes, but visiting athletes, as well. She also agreed with Beers’ sentiment on the urgency of the matter.

“If we don’t do this now, we know it’s not going to be taken care of,” Tabone said.

More information will be made available to the public as the District’s plans are finalized in the coming months. The next meeting of the Fredonia Board of Education is Tuesday, Aug. 20 at 6 p.m. in the High School Library.