South Burlington is split over a $209 million proposed high school and middle school building project that voters will consider on Town Meeting Day.
While the project was unanimously approved by the school board, a “Vote No” effort has emerged from opponents who are concerned about the project’s price tag.
The $209.6 million project will cost a total of $345 million for taxpayers over 32 years when principal payments and interest are factored in, according to the district. The 405,000-square-foot facility will house both the high school and the middle school, and is an increase of about 100,000 square feet.
The current South Burlington High School and Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School buildings will be demolished under the plan. School board members argue that the new facility will improve the student experience and address issues with overcrowding and the buildings’ outdated infrastructure.
The project would have a large impact on city taxpayers. A $350,000 homeowner will on average pay $1,500 more in annual taxes over the life of the 32-year bond. A household with an income of $70,000 would pay an average of $438 a year more.
Residents with household incomes of less than $136,500 would qualify for income sensitivity. Around half of South Burlington residents would qualify.
Bridget Burkhardt, the clerk of the school board, said the plan was developed after years of planning and will address the current school’s capacity issues, which will only get worse as the district adds more students.
The high school is currently 4% over capacity, Burkhardt said. The district projects adding 125 students at the high school over the 10 years, which would make the building 18% over capacity. New residents in a slew of new developments planned in the city are projected to raise the school population, Bukhardt said.
The schools also have serious infrastructure needs, with improvements needed to the electrical and HVAC systems, and accessibility issues for students with disabilities.
Burkhardt said the district considered other options, including spending $55 million on renovations, but decided a larger investment in a new building was necessary.
“We couldn’t really go to the community and ask for that now, knowing that those renovations would not address capacity, would not address a lot of these educational issues, would not address a lot of the things that make these these buildings usable by students and faculty for the type of education that we are trying to provide students today,” she said.
The new building will also help the district adjust to changing teaching strategies, Burkardt said. The new building would have more collaborative spaces for students for project-based and interdisciplinary learning, she said.
“A lot of our classroom spaces are too small, and the building doesn’t really support our team-teaching approach which is the approach we’re using at the middle school,” she said. “So a reconfiguration would be extremely helpful to how we’re educating our students.”
Residents who oppose the project say the district could renovate the current building for a much smaller price. A group of residents appeared at Wednesday’s school board meeting to speak against the proposal.
Resident Annie Leupp said Wednesday that she could not afford the tax increases. She said the increase was much more than residents could afford.
“I can’t afford to live here anymore if you do this,” she said.
Leupp said she believed the schools should be renovated instead.
“Fix them up, refurbish them, and allow these buildings to stand,” she said. “And then maybe someday when you get more money, have your nice shiny building that’s going to cost $350 million.”
Dan Emmons, another resident, spoke at Wednesday’s meeting and said he thought many in the community think the district has “a serious spending addiction.”
“At any point, did you say, this is really too much, we really should not burden the community with this?” he said. “At any point, did anybody think that, or was it just the big shiny goal?”
A political action committee has also been formed in opposition to the project, as the Other Paper reported last week. “Citizens for an Affordable South Burlington” has raised at least $1,500 and are creating signs and fliers encouraging residents to vote against the project.
The group has also established a website laying out its argument against the bond.
“Existing buildings can be renovated for $31-55 million,” the group’s website states. “Additional small buildings can be considered in the future for a small investment. The community can ask the School Board to do a 2nd design review that allows the community to review and vote on the options.”
The group is also arguing that the board has not been explicit about how the plan will improve educational outcomes and the district should wait to see if the Legislature becomes willing to fund school construction.
If voters support the project, construction is set to start around April 2021, with students likely moving in in January 2024, Burkhardt said.
Burkhardt said the district knew the project would be expensive. But she said the board, after years of considering its options, felt as though it was a necessary investment in the community.
“We understand that it’s a big investment, and community members are going to have to determine whether they are comfortable with that,” she said. “But we believe this is the proposal that we needed to make to the community to really lay the foundation for the next 60 or 70 years of education in South Burlington.”
