Fredonia board previews three-part $51M capital project; public raises tax‑impact concerns

The Fredonia Central School Board on July 16 presented a proposed, three‑part capital project that would ask voters this December to approve roughly $51 million in work across campus maintenance, music facilities and athletic improvements.

In a 35‑minute overview, district presenters and consultants said the plan is grounded in a 2023 Building Condition Survey (BCS) and in community feedback. The BCS identified extensive roof, HVAC, electrical and other infrastructure needs; the district said it prioritized those items into a $22.4 million “warm, safe and dry” package that officials said addresses the most urgent safety and preservation needs.

The board’s presentation laid out three linked propositions: Proposition 1 (warm, safe and dry) at about $22.4 million; Proposition 2 (expanded music instructional space) at up to $10 million, contingent on approval of Prop 1; and Proposition 3 (athletics), a proposed $19.6 million multipurpose turf field and related site work, contingent on approval of Props 1 and 2.

“Maggie,” a consultant from Municipal Solutions, outlined the financing assumptions: the district expects state building aid to cover about 77–78% of the cost for Propositions 1 and 2, leaving a local share funded through a combination of capital reserve funds, debt service savings and a projected one‑time tax levy increase. The presentation estimated a 1.9% one‑time tax increase tied to Proposition 1 and a 1.1% tax increase for Proposition 2; Proposition 3 was estimated to drive an additional ~6.9% if approved. Presenters noted a typographical error on a sample chart and said corrected materials would be provided.

Why it matters: the board emphasized that the BCS is a required periodic review and that some facilities — notably aging roofs and mechanical systems — represent near‑term risks and deferred costs if not addressed. The athletic proposal also reflects repeated public feedback about unusable fields caused by drainage and clay soils; presenters argued that a turf field with engineered drainage would reduce cancellations and safety risks.

Public reaction: the meeting then moved to agenda‑related public comment, which drew sustained turnout. Speakers who live in the village said the proposed combined tax impact is a heavy burden for residents coping with rising utility and village taxes. “This is too expensive, and it’s the wrong time to do such a huge project,” said Shardene Ryder, who cited a recent 16% water/sewer increase and a village budget shortfall. Kathleen Dennison, a former county budget director, told the board the proposal felt oversized and urged consolidation talk before launching a multi‑million dollar plan.

Other commenters urged support for specific pieces. Andy Bennett, identifying himself as a community member, praised the music proposal and noted that hundreds of students participate in music programs; he urged the board to publicize the details and stress the high state aid share for the music component.

Board response and next steps: board members thanked speakers, said the district will send a survey to the community (electronic distribution was discussed) and promised to refine charts and outreach materials. The district reiterated that the current plan represents prioritized items, that some BCS recommendations will be phased or funded through annual budgets, and that the final propositions will be shaped by community feedback before going to voters in December.

What’s next: the district will send a follow‑up survey and update public materials; presenters said corrected financial tables will be posted. The board will take additional feedback before finalizing proposition language for the ballot.