FAQ: Woodstock Union 2026

The current school building was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s using inexpensive prefabricated materials like cinder blocks and concrete slabs with a planned lifespan of around 40 years. With building materials and systems now deteriorating extensively, and a structure that cannot be modified, a renovation that meets district operating and educational goals without spending more money than it would cost to build a new facility, is infeasible. For instance, the middle school wing cannot be renovated to comply with modern codes. Maintaining and operating the old building is also expensive. With the building’s sprawling layout and inefficient walls, high heating costs are unavoidable and the list of expensive repairs needed continues to grow. Just last year, the building’s heating system degraded to the point where we lost the use of six classrooms and emergency upgrades cost taxpayers approximately $1.3 million.

The old building does not comply with current ADA requirements, does not have a sprinkler system throughout, and precautions for student security were not included in its design. In the past 60 years, educational approaches have also changed substantially such that the classroom sizes and corridor layout of the school are obsolete. Finally, in addition to being more expensive and infeasible, renovation would have a far greater impact on students who would be displaced and disrupted for two to three years while attending school amidst construction. For these reasons and following a facility assessment and options analysis, our school board determined that a new school building is the right choice for our district.

The obvious benefits of the new school are to our students and all occupants of the building. Several studies have shown that healthy school buildings and modern design for educational facilities improve student well-being and in turn, student performance, test scores, behavior, and graduation rates. Healthy learning environments filled with natural light, clear acoustics and safe indoor air quality allow students to engage with their education and reach their full potential. Healthy schools also improve teacher and staff retention and satisfaction. When contrasted with the existing impediments to learning presented by the current school building, the benefits to our students and the faculty and staff that support them will be considerable.

Less obvious are the economic benefits of a new school to our member towns and taxpayers. During construction, the school project will create jobs and opportunities for local businesses. Once up and running, the new school will attract students and families, leading to increased vitality of our communities. And critically—with growing enrollment our schools will become more efficient, reducing tax rates by bringing our district’s “Per Pupil Spend” down—the key driver of education tax rates under Vermont’s school funding system. In fact, increasing district enrollment to 1200—a number of students our district has had as recently as 2006—would completely offset the cost of building the new school. Further increases in enrollment would drive tax rates below current levels.

We will spend millions of dollars to fix increasing problems with the failing building, with no upside benefits to our students or communities. There is also growing potential for a major problem to shut down the building for repairs. In addition to the recent $1.3 M emergency upgrade of the heating system, in the past few years, basketball games have been canceled mid-game due to snow and ice loads causing the steel supports in the gym to groan alarmingly and the cinder block walls to crack. Fixing the roof is estimated to cost $2.4M. At a recent parents night, aging septic system pipes caused sewage to back up onto the bathroom floors. Repairs to that system are estimated to cost $1.9M. These types of unplanned emergency expenses passed down to taxpayers will only increase as the building continues to fail.

Continuing these negative experiences will prompt student attrition which will in turn result in less efficient operations, raise the "Per Pupil Spend" under Vermont's funding system and ultimately lead to higher tax rates. Should in-district enrollment decline to 800 students, the resulting tax rates will be higher than if we build the new school–with none of the benefits to our students.

Construction of the new school will take 18 months.

Not directly. The new school will be built on a site adjacent to the current school building, so classes will continue in the old building until the new building is ready for occupancy. There will be construction equipment, traffic and noise outside, but school operations in the old building will be largely unaffected.

The new middle and high school building is designed to accommodate 600 students. Currently, there are just over 450 students at Woodstock Middle and High School. Additional capacity will accommodate projected growth forecasted by the New England School Development Council (NESDEC) of 120+ students by 2030, a planned housing development in Killington and investments by the district to recruit and retain students from neighboring towns.

Yes–significantly. The current middle and high school is incredibly inefficient both structurally and in its heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The building envelope—meaning the walls, insulation, windows, and doors do not effectively retain the heat generated by the building’s aging fuel oil boilers, requiring them to burn a high volume of oil just to heat the facility (the current building also does not have any air conditioning). As a result, the building emits 1.8 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year—that’s equivalent to 81 trips in an airplane around the earth.

The new school is designed to be “net-zero-ready” using energy efficient and sustainable high performance building materials and drawing on best practices in modern educational facility design. Incorporating sufficient, renewable energy systems such as solar and geothermal will allow the building to reach “net zero.” In other words, the amount of energy required from external sources to operate the facility will be equal to or less than the power the new facility generates—helping the environment while also being much less costly to operate in the long term.

Over a 40-year lifespan, the new building is projected to save district taxpayers approximately $17 million compared to the old building’s costs of burning fossil fuels and maintaining antiquated heating systems. And this comparison is really not “apples to apples” considering the fact that in addition to providing heat when it’s cold outside, the new building’s HVAC systems will also cool the building when it’s hot outside–a critical feature considering climate trends over the next several decades. Also of significant importance, over a 40-year life span, a net-zero building will prevent 72 million pounds of carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere.

Yes. Voters in our district’s member towns (Woodstock, Reading, Pomfret, Barnard, Bridgewater, Plymouth and Killington) will be asked at a TBD date to allow the school district to borrow the money to finance the new building project. A majority of voters across all member towns will be required to pass the bond and move the project forward.

The total project cost (as of Dec 2023) including the construction of the building and playing fields, furnishing, and demolition of the old building is $99 million. This number also includes construction and soft cost contingencies. The money for the project will come from three sources—borrowing, government grants/incentive programs, and private fundraising.

Borrowed funds will come from the Vermont Bond Bank and/or the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) rural innovation program. The USDA has recently funded other Vermont school projects and offers favorable repayment terms and rates. Several million dollars are expected from a combination of state and federal grant and incentive programs promoting sustainable building construction. Private fundraising is also well underway with $3.5 million pledged to date. These pledges are contingent on the bond passing and will not be available if the bond fails.

To use a common metaphor, if the new building were a car, it would be a Subaru—practical, efficient, durable and economical. The square foot price for our project is $627/SF which includes construction and all associated costs like site work, permitting, furnishings, demolition/removal of the old building and contingencies. Here’s how the project stacks up to other VT projects with all pricing in 2023 dollars:

• Burlington High School (current): $209M/225,000 SF = $836/SF

• Danville Schools K-12 (2021): $76M /120,000 SF = $633/SF

• Allen Brook School K-12 (2022): $51M/78,500 SF = $651/SF

• Central Vermont Career Tech Center (2021) $101.7M/140,000 SF = $727/SF

• Milton Elementary K-8 (current): $158.2M /225,000 SF = $721/SF

New Standards for school construction projects recently adopted by the VT State Board of Education allow our project to be $656/SF.

At $627/SF, our project is significantly less expensive than many other recent and current Vermont school projects and within State standards.

View this chart to see the impacts of paying off the school bond on education taxes over time for both homestead taxpayers and income-sensitive taxpayers. These numbers are based off a $99 M bond scenario and represent a good faith estimate of what district homeowners can expect based on their income level and fair market value of their homes.

Vermont’s public education system is funded through property taxes on residential homes and businesses. Property taxes on primary residences, called “homestead” property in the school district will be impacted by the school bond payments. Taxes on second homeowners and business property, called “non-homestead” property are set at statewide rates and will not be directly impacted by the bond. However, it is important to note that tax revenue from second homeowners and businesses are by far the largest payer of education taxes statewide, making up more than 40% of the state’s education fund, as compared to just 26% for homestead taxpayers. Voters who do not own property in the district, such as people living in rental apartments or adult children living with their parents, will also not be impacted by the bond repayments.

Additionally, Vermont’s Education Property Tax Credit Program issues education tax credits up to $8,000/year to households with annual income of less than $128,000. Any available credits can be used to reduce the amount of taxes due, including the impacts of the bond. For example, a taxpayer making less than $40,000 and living in a $275,000 home would not see any impact to their taxes as a result of the bond.

Recognizing the need for voter support, the School District has set a policy to cap the amount the bond repayments can increase taxes on homestead property. This cap has been set at 16%, consistent with impacts to Burlington taxpayers–who in 2022 passed a $165 million bond for the construction of a new high school building with 76% voter support. If such a limit were not established, the bond payments could burden local taxpayers with an increase of more than 30%, which many voters would understandably find difficult to support. This cap represents a roughly 50/50 split between district taxpayers and other funding sources.

The School District can take a number of measures to reduce the impact of the project to local tax rates as part of annual budget planning and decision-making, such as:

1. Identifying and pursuing alternate funding sources. Every dollar raised through private fundraising and government grants/incentives, and every dollar saved by eliminating operating costs reduces the impact of the project to tax rates. Last year, the School District made investments to add grant-writer and fundraiser positions and will consider further investments based on need and opportunity. As a rule of thumb, each full-time fundraiser can be expected to raise $1 million annually. Over 20 years, fundraising at this level would cover about 20% of the expected project cost.

2. Structure and terms of bond repayments. A number of financial “levers” within the School District’s control can help mitigate impacts of the project to district tax rates. For example, loans provided through the USDA are provided at reduced interest rates as compared to local sources; and, both the Vermont Bond Bank and the USDA offer extended repayment terms up to 30 or 40 years. While structuring or restructuring the bond payments to stay below the 16% cap could increase the overall total cost of the project, using these levers to mitigate annual tax impacts will ease the initial burden on taxpayers, allowing time for funds to be raised from alternate sources and for enrollment to increase.

3. Driving increases in enrollment. As discussed above, attracting new students reduces “Per Pupil Spend,” the most significant factor in determining education tax rates under Vermont’s school funding system. Enhancing the School District’s communications and recruiting capabilities to promote enrollment in the new facility and in the elementary schools feeding into it will increase the number of students enrolled, driving tax rates down.

4. Budget reductions. If the School District is unable to meet the 16% tax impact cap through other means, reductions to the school budget may be required to make the school project affordable to district taxpayers. And at the end of the day, taxpayers have the ability to hold the School District accountable to its commitments through the annual meeting process requiring approval of the annual school budget. Under Vermont law, should the annual school budget fail to pass, the District is required to reduce the planned budget and bring it back for approval. While such reductions would not be ideal, the School District’s commitment to them underscores the need for action to address the clear and present issues we are faced with by the conditions of our current school building.

By combining these approaches, we can avoid unreasonable tax impacts on homestead taxpayers and gather the support needed from voters to move forward with the project.

First, thank you for taking the time to become informed on this important project. The volunteer effort to move the project forward has been underway since 2016 and we continue to need community members to help us with solution-finding, communications and fundraising. Please contact Marlena McNamee at marlena.mcnamee@mtnviews.org to volunteer.