Former Board of Education President Brian Aldrich voted against each resolution pertaining to the capital project at the recent meeting. Different from voting on the project itself, Aldrich cast three votes against even putting it out to the community to decide.

“I’m voting opposed to this because I think that our community needs to be more business-friendly. We need to take care of our residents before we take care of our students,” Aldrich said.

Aldrich first voted against issuing a negative declaration in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which means that the project is not deemed to provide a negative impact on the environment. Aldrich then voted against the legal notice required for the project vote, and finally, he voted against an agreement between the District and Buffalo Construction Consultants, Inc., for on-site construction management services related to the project.

Aldrich claimed to favor “consistency” in explaining his decision against putting the project out to the public. He explained his opposition of the project for 14 minutes before casting his votes.

Fredonia fans look on from the stands at the Orange Bowl during the homecoming football game earlier this season.

The wording of the three proposals, accounting for nearly $52 million in work and a 10% tax increase if all three were to pass, was officially set by the District. The three proposals are as follows: Proposition No. 1 — Keeping our students warm, safe, and dry; Proposition No. 2 — Investing in our music students; and Proposition No. 3 — Updating facilities for our student athletes. Proposition No. 1 accounts for $22.1 million of maintenance work; Proposition No. 2 accounts for $10 million of work to enhance music spaces; and Proposition No. 3 accounts for $19.6 million of work to athletic facilities, including the installation of a multi-purpose turf field.

Superintendent Dr. Brad Zilliox was first to respond to Aldrich’s stance at the recent meeting.

“I’m proud of the fact that in this capital project, it was not about eight people, nine people, 10 people coming together to make decisions for the community. We involved the community … and I believe we’ve packaged the responses to that inquiry pretty well into three propositions,” Zilliox said.

Zilliox noted how in the most recent survey, more than 80% of respondents favored the first proposition; more than 60% supported the second proposition; and just below 50% were in favor of all three propositions.

“I felt that based on that feedback, this deserves to go to the community for a vote. It deserves to allow the community to make the decision whether or not we move forward in those areas,” Zilliox said.

BREAKING IT DOWN

The proposed capital project has been a contentious topic in recent months, as speakers on both sides of the issue have addressed the Board at meetings for over a year. The District’s needs are extensive, from approximately $50 million in maintenance needs in the near future, to inadequate spaces to accommodate increased participation in music programs, to lackluster athletic facilities that not only embarrass the District, but also put athletes in danger.

Throughout months of listening to the public to gather feedback, through public comments at Board meetings, public forums designed for discussion, and multiple surveys issued to District stakeholders, the District crafted its three propositions with the help of Young and Wright architects. The critical maintenance needs were put forward in the first proposition, followed by enhanced music spaces because the majority of work was eligible for State aid. The third and final proposition, related to athletic facilities upgrades, was put last because it includes the largest portion of unaided work. The first proposition would require a 1.9% tax increase; the first two propositions would require a 3% tax increase; and for all three propositions to pass, the District would require a 9.9% tax increase.

Throughout the process, Board members mostly refrained from taking a public stance regarding the proposed project. But at the recent meeting, as the project was nearing approval to be put out to the community, Aldrich finally shared his strong opposition to the project. Rather than sitting front and center, speaking on behalf of the Board as he often did as President before he was replaced by Steve Johnston at the most recent election, Aldrich sat in a corner seat at the table as he opposed the project that was set in motion during his tenure as President. He sat in the same seat that former Board member Tom Hawk occupied throughout Aldrich’s time as Board President. Hawk would frequently engage in long discussions regarding financial ramifications to the District during his time on the Board, and Aldrich did no different in his seat.

Aldrich believes that if the District were to be asking for approximately $50 million of work to be approved by taxpayers, it should be allocated to the “warm, safe and dry” needs of the District. Through the Building Condition Survey the District conducted over the past year, $50 million of needs were identified, but the District then prioritized those needs to propose $22.1 million of the most dire needs with this project, while the other needs will be addressed with a future project proposal, potentially five years from now. The District took the advice of Young and Wright architects in prioritizing the critical needs first, then addressing the other needs with a future project. In doing so, it spaces out the needs for the District in the future, rather than putting a substantial amount of work on the same timeline for replacement many years down the road.

Aldrich highlighted the substantial cost of the project, especially to senior citizens on a fixed income, which he called “one of the biggest growing groups” among District stakeholders.

“A 10% increase to our taxpayers, we had several people come and address our Board who have said this is too big of a burden for a lot of people who are in retirement age, who have a fixed income,” Aldrich said.

Aldrich feels that a substantial tax increase will hurt the community’s ability to foster businesses, and that the 10% tax increase would reduce property values.

Aldrich also claimed that over the past 50 years, the District has lost 50% of its student population. “We have fewer students, and yet we continue to spend money on capital projects. That is unsustainable,” Aldrich said. “… For the next 17 years we are going to be paying for this project, we’re going to lose 15-20% of our students.”

VOICE OF DISSENT

Following Aldrich’s comments, Zilliox responded on behalf of the District, then later provided further information to the OBSERVER that refuted many of Aldrich’s claims.

Zilliox stated that Aldrich’s claims of enrollment decreasing by 50% since the 1970s was not true. Both District leaders — Zilliox and Johnston — highlighted that the District has seen a slight increase in enrollment in each of the past five years, and prior to that, the figures were relatively level for more than a decade. Approximately 30 students at Fredonia pay non-resident tuition each year, which has been consistent for the past decade.

Furthermore, music enrollment and overall enrollment are two different things. The District has seen more involvement in music programs than ever before, and the current music spaces are not equipped to accommodate the increased participation. If Proposition No. 2 were not to pass, the District could be forced to limit participation in its music programs.

Related to athletics, the District fields 30 sports teams that would not require another District’s participation to field a roster. The only exception highlighted by the District is Boys Swimming. Fredonia is one of the only schools in the region to field its own football team without merging with another school. Aside from Dunkirk, many other schools in the region combine to field a football team, such as Silver Creek-Forestville, Gowanda-Pine Valley, Chautauqua Lake-Westfield-Brocton, Falconer-Cassadaga Valley-Maple Grove, and Clymer-Sherman-Panama. While Fredonia does maintain its own team, its Orange Bowl field is often criticized as one of the worst facilities in the region.

Regarding upgraded facilities for music and athletics, as set forth in Propositions No. 2 and No. 3, Johnston said, “I feel like our students really deserve these facilities, both music and athletics.”

Aldrich, however, does not favor athletic facilities upgrades because the District already offers the sports programs that would benefit from the upgrades, just as he feels the District already offers music programs with its current facilities. He also credited the Fredonia soccer teams for playing games at SUNY Fredonia to address concerns and favors regionalization efforts to address other similar situations.

“We’re not increasing any of the offerings that we’re giving to our students. We already have football, we already have soccer, we already have baseball, we already have softball, we already have a music program,” Aldrich said.

While Aldrich strongly opposed the capital project proposal on record, his fellow Board members lined up to oppose his statements. The strongest opposition came from Sheila Hahn, who followed Aldrich’s prepared statement with one of her own. Hahn referenced how she still decorated their home for Halloween, even though her children have already graduated and moved away from Fredonia.

Hahn said, “I decorated for the young children of Fredonia; I decorated for them, for the trick-or-treaters, for the people who drive by, and yes, I did decorate for my own kids so that they know that just because they have moved on to college, and they’re not home for Halloween, and I don’t have children at home or children in this school district anymore, does not mean that I don’t have a stake in this community. It does not mean that I don’t do things for the best interests of the kids in this community.”

Hahn even spoke to Aldrich’s own nephew, Nate Aldrich, the Economic Development Coordinator with the Chautauqua County Department of Planning and Development. Hahn called Nate Aldrich “a superstar”, and then shared his comments to her with the Board. Hahn said Nate Aldrich called the capital project, specifically Proposition No. 3, “a huge opportunity to attract and retain new families and improve the quality of life in Fredonia.”

According to Hahn, Nate Aldrich is considering a move to Fredonia, as Hahn did six years ago when she decided back to Western New York to be closer to her family. She said, “My husband and I did not move here six years ago to help write Fredonia’s obituary. We moved here to be part of its renaissance. I hope that every member of our community will join me in showing Fredonia pride and supporting all three propositions of the Fredonia School District capital project.”

BOARD SHOWS SUPPORT

Fellow Board members Lisa Powell Fortna, Aaron Marshall, and Jerry Kinney voiced their support of the project, as well, while Board member Courtney Gullo was absent from the meeting, but submitted a statement in support of the project, as well.

Fortna called the project “essential to enhancing the safety, education, environment, and extracurricular opportunities for our students.” Fortna, like Hahn, said the project will further the District’s goal of being known as a “destination district” in the region. It is Fortna’s belief that the benefits to the project “far outweigh the costs.”

Marshall said that the District and previous Boards had “kicked the can down the road for years” regarding capital improvements to all three areas of the current proposal. “The time is often never right for big choices and big decisions, but there is always a time to act. I think the time for us to act has long passed us,” Marshall said.

Kinney acknowledged hesitation regarding Proposition No. 3 when it comes time to vote due to the substantial tax increase that comes with it. Before expressing his intent to vote in favor of all three propositions, Kinney called Proposition No. 3 “a tough pill to swallow.” However, when it comes to putting it out to the community to decide, he had no hesitation to vote in favor of all three resolutions.

Gullo, a parent of current and former multi-sport athletes at Fredonia, has witnessed and heard complaints about the District’s facilities since long before she joined the Board. As a Board member, Gullo said facilities upgrades have been “the single most consistent issue brought to the Board.” Gullo also stated, “In order to best meet the safety and future needs of 100% of our students, I fully support all three propositions.”

Aldrich was not swayed by the comments of his fellow Board members. He voted against all three resolutions that were necessary to put the decision in the community’s hands. With Gullo absent, the Board voted 5-1 in favor of each resolution.

The official vote for all three propositions of the capital project will take place on Dec. 12 from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. in the Fredonia High School cafeteria. Absentee ballots must be received by 5 p.m. on the night of the vote. An absentee ballot may be obtained at the District Clerk’s office between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. each weekday, excluding holidays. Military voter ballot applications must be submitted by Monday, Nov. 18. The District plans to provide additional means of communication to the public regarding the vote in the coming weeks.

The next meeting of the Fredonia Board of Education is Tuesday, Nov. 5, at 6 p.m. in the Fredonia High School library.