MONTPELIER — It was way more marathon than sprint, but a school board that previously committed $1.5 million in surplus funds to upgrade the cinder track that circles one of the athletic fields at Montpelier High School agreed to commit $400,000 more.
Amid what several described as mounting “misinformation” about the much-discussed project, members — some more reluctantly than others — voted to earmark more of a fund balance they were told an audit is expected to reveal has swelled to nearly $3.9 million.
That figure includes the $1.5 million the board unanimously agreed to put toward the track project back in April and $700,000 it has reserved as a future source of budget revenue. It also includes just over $100,000 in assorted “set asides,” leaving the district with what Superintendent Libby Bonesteel described as an unreserved “rainy day fund” of nearly $1.6 million.
A board-adopted policy calls for holding 2% of the operating budget — roughly $550,000 — in reserve.
Bonesteel said hitting that target still leaves more than $1 million unaccounted for. The board, she said, could comfortably commit an additional $400,000 to cover the projected cost of a new rubberized track.
The math was easy. The money is in the bank and spending it on a one-time project will not require any increase in taxes as some complained has been suggested in recent weeks.
The decision, which came near the end of a well-attended Wednesday night session that saw track advocates hugging and high-fiving in the high school library moments after the board voted, was a bit trickier.
Not because there weren’t the votes to approve the additional funding for the track when the evening began, but because some members sought to slow the pace of the process.
Board members Mia Moore and Amanda Garces went out of their way to note they weren’t opposed to the track, but both argued the board should take the time to hear from those who weren’t plugged into the process sooner.
“It’s valuable to conduct our business in a way that is thorough and thoughtful and … allows a space for the full consideration rather than trying to meet a deadline that we might not even absolutely have to meet,” Moore said, suggesting a committee be asked to develop a process for determining how to spend unrestricted funds by the end of the calendar year.
The comment kicked off a board discussion that spanned more than 90 minutes.
The meeting was attended by a mix of familiar faces — including students and community members who have been lobbying the board to support funding for the track upgrade for more than a year.
Nathan Suter was one of them.
“I hope that we can … get to ‘yes’ on this project and move on,” said Suter, a parent and middle school track coach.
A few residents were new and expressed reservations. Lisa Burns characterized the proposal as “tone deaf” and Giovanna Peebles feared it could provoke a “backlash” if voters aren’t consulted.
“I think we need more work, and it needs a public vote,” Peebles said, suggesting the question be added to the Town Meeting Day ballot.
The comments, both for and against the track were reflective of an avalanche of emails that board members said they had received, as well as what they several individuals lamented was a sometimes fact-challenged social media debate.
Responding to Moore’s suggestion to make time for additional community conversation, School Director Rhett Williams was among those skeptical that would be helpful.
“I don’t see how extending a process that has gotten to be … contaminated with bad information is going to make it better,” he said. “I think it’s actually going to make it worse.”
Williams wasn’t alone.
School Director Jill Remick defended a process she argued was both thorough and thoughtful and led to the board’s unanimous decision to commit $1.5 million for the track upgrade back in April.
“I’m not willing to go back on that agreement that we made,” she said. “I’m not un-voting that.”
Remick said she was troubled by the belated reaction to a reasoned decision that was made based on the recommendation of school administrators.
“I’m really disappointed and upset by the amount of information and how personal and unhelpful it has become,” she said.
Chair Jim Murphy predicted the board could expect more of the same if it revisited a months-old decision and deferred action on a time-sensitive request.
“I’m very reluctant to have a ‘choose your own adventure’ for how to spend $3 million in the community,” he said. “I think that is a recipe for a community food fight and for misinformation.”
Murphy suggested there already had been too much of that, generating “confusion and community push-back” with respect to a project he said he viewed as “a no-brainer.”
Safety concerns about the existing track aside, Murphy said the proposed upgrade would vastly improve what has been described as a well-used community resource, and an asset for potentially attract new families to the two-town district.
“If you have someone who cares about facilities and wants a high school that looks like it belongs in the 21st century, they’re going to go to Middlesex, not Montpelier,” he said, referring to one of the towns in the neighboring Washington Central Unified Union School District.
Middlesex is one of five towns in that district, which is anchored by U-32 Middle High School, where a track that already was better than Montpelier’s was completely reconstructed and resurfaced two years ago.
Though Garces, like Moore, ultimately voted to commit the additional $400,000 in surplus money for the track project, she said she wasn’t satisfied with the process and suggested the board should own it.
“We need to be humble and say: ‘We messed up,’” Garces said, lamenting what felt to her like a “binary choice” with respect to the track project.
Murphy acknowledged the process could have been better, but defended the proposal, and rejected the notion it was a track-or-no-track decision.
“This was not a binary choice,” he said, suggesting he was comfortable with administrative assurances that other issues that have been raised — from pandemic-related learning loss on down — already are being addressed.
Murphy said he was confident if administrators believed there were competing needs for the money earmarked for the track they would have flagged them.
The board’s decision Wednesday night will allow design work and permitting to begin with an eye toward putting the project out to bid next spring and breaking ground after school lets out in June. As was the case with the U-32 track project, applying the rubber surface likely would have to wait until the following summer.
david.delcore @timesargus.com
