School board takes next steps on facilities, preps for budget discussions
November 3, 2025 | By Cheryl Casey | CorrespondentThe Harwood school board has tasked its Buildings and Visioning Committee with taking a deep dive into the facilities report from architectural firm TruexCullins and drafting a priority list of maintenance projects needing the most immediate attention.
“Unless we want to be in a position where we see some critical failures in buildings, I do think we need to take this extremely seriously,” said Superintendent Mike Leichliter. “We are looking in some cases at some pending issues that could be health and safety.”
The directive came at the Oct. 22 school board meeting, where TruexCullins architect and senior associate Cam Featherstonhaugh reviewed the slide presentation previously made available to the board and the public. The firm was tasked last spring with evaluating the district’s five elementary schools and Crossett Brook Middle School to determine the each facility’s needed upgrades and repairs and to estimate the costs of that work.
Featherstonhaugh acknowledged that while the cost figures in the report might seem large, the Harwood school district is in better shape than many others across the state.
“The whole state is kind of in a hole from generally widespread lack of investment over the decades,” he explained, referencing a 2023 Vermont Agency of Education facilities assessment report that found $7.3 billion in deferred maintenance statewide.
Building cost estimates & condition scores
The Truex team visited each school to evaluate exterior and interior features, systems like plumbing, heating, electrical and lighting as well as building envelopes elements such as windows, roofing, doors and insulation.
They present their findings broken down into three priority categories and the associated costs. Priority 1 refers to the most pressing issues that need attention as they relate to health and safety or modern building code compliance. Priority 2 items relate to building materials and equipment life-expectancy or energy use/efficiency issues. Priority 3 covers all other issues related to general functionality.
Another metric used is a Facility Condition Index (FCI), calculated as the ratio of deferred maintenance costs to the current replacement value of the facility. The lower the ratio, viewed as a percentage, the better the facility’s condition.
The bottom line on estimated costs and the condition scores by building:
Brookside Elementary School has the highest Priority 1 costs at $2,868,994 and the highest overall deferred maintenance total at $16,735,501. Its condition score is listed at 26%.
Crossett Brook’s total deferred maintenance costs are the second-highest at $10,187,109, but the facility was deemed in the best condition of the six schools with an FCI of 17%.
Warren Elementary School has the second-highest Priority 1 cost at $1,451,300, but the lowest total deferred maintenance cost at $4,055,711. Its condition score is 18%.
Fayston Elementary School has a deferred maintenance total of $7,352,902 (third-highest) and the worst FCI score at 49%.
Moretown’s total deferred maintenance cost is $4,875,697 with an FCI score of 27%.
Waitsfield’s total deferred maintenance cost is $4,840,026; FCI score is listed at 24%.
The FCI range of 10-30% identifies facilities that are nearing the end of their useful or serviceable life, according to the descriptions provided by TruexCullins. Of the six schools, only Fayston exceeded this range. According to the FCI descriptions, a facility above 30% “has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life.” The average FCI for the six schools was 24%.
Harwood Union Middle and High School was separated out as a separate survey completed by PMC Concept Design in November 2024. That total deferred maintenance cost was estimated at $73,002,800 and the building’s FCI was 51%.
The district’s average facility condition score was calculated at 35% and estimated deferred maintenance costs for all of the schools, including the high school, total just over $121 million.
Next steps
During the discussion following Featherstonhaugh’s presentation, Waterbury representative Dan Roscioli admitted to not being sure what the next steps or options could look like. “How is it possible…where we don’t get penalized by the State?” he asked, noting, “The state’s been pretty clear that we shall not bond because that will penalize us and we can’t budget for this maintenance work because we’ll hit our spending threshold.”
After a four-year suspension of the excess spending threshold, the State reimplemented it on July 1 of this year. A penalty will kick in when school districts’ per-pupil spending hits 118% of the statewide average, which is calculated each year.
Leichliter admitted there is no clear answer to next steps, but believes legislators understand there is a critical need to address deferred facilities maintenance. “While there may be ramifications, I think, for the work from the State,” he said, “I believe we just need to focus on what are the needs of the buildings to keep them functioning well for our students today and in the next 10 years.”
The presentation and ensuing discussion among the Harwood school leaders comes as the state of Vermont is on the precipice of enacting sweeping education system reforms, including a major consolidation of school districts from over 100 to 25 or fewer. Act 73, a new state law adopted earlier this year, created a Vermont School District Redistricting Task Force charged with presenting the state legislature with up to three options for consolidating districts ahead of the 2026 legislative session. A major shakeup of school districts with the goal of trimming overall education costs is expected to eventually lead to consolidating schools as well. The impacts on specific districts and the schools they operate are yet to be determined.
That uncertainty should not prevent school districts from moving ahead to address pressing building needs, Leichliter said to the board. “We can’t wait for the state” to resolve the redistricting question “if we want to be good stewards of what’s been entrusted to us.”
Featherstonhaugh reminded the board that the TruexCullins report is “only a snapshot in time” from the architects’ review of the facilities over the summer. “There have been issues that we found then and that have already been corrected, and there have been issues that have cropped up since then,” he said.
He emphasized that when it came to the projected costs in the report, “The real value of this work is that it can be transferred into the capital improvement plan.”
Some of the discussion sought to shift the focus away from the report’s numbers and toward the human element. Duxbury board member Emily Dolloff wondered how the staff who work in these buildings are affected by maintenance issues, especially their “ability to feel like they’re providing a good learning environment, accessibility, etc. for the students.”
Dolloff was echoing concerns expressed earlier during the public comment period by Caitlin Macleod-Bluver, who spoke as a parent from Moretown but is also an experienced classroom teacher and was named Vermont’s 2025 Teacher of the Year.
“Our community extends far beyond the walls of just the classroom,” said Macleod-Bluver, describing some of the highlights of her son’s kindergarten experience this year. “It’s this community that I want you to remember tonight as you continue to discuss the TruexCullins report. It’s easy for us to have discussions focused on specific line items and budget numbers.”
Macleod-Bulver encouraged the board to remain driven by its mission. “We are serving students and we must prioritize what is best for them and best for our community,” she added.
Featherstonhaugh said TruexCullins would produce more details as part of its report, specifically more information to explain one section of the slide presentation – a facility comparison matrix near the end of the slide deck. Information presented in a graphic format will be explained in greater detail, Featherstonhaugh said. This additional information was shared with the school board and local newspapers last week. Find that report here.
At the end of the meeting discussion, board Chair Ashley Woods acknowledged the approximately two dozen members of the public who were in attendance, either in person or online. “We do appreciate the number of community members here tonight. We don’t generally get anybody, and it’s a sign about how important our schools are to us,” she said.
The board, however, did not solicit questions or comments from the public about the report and the presentation.
Board prepares for budget scenarios
The board spent a little time looking ahead to the process of drafting the fiscal year 2026-27 budget. District Finance and Operations Director Lisa Estler reported some good news that, rather than a 12% increase in health insurance costs, the expected increase for next year is likely to be only 7.4%. That amounts to a difference of $350,000 that she had been anticipating needing to budget for, she said.
Estler is preparing to draft the FY27 budget and asked the board for guidance on how many scenarios she should present. The board requested four scenarios: a level service budget (a budget that funds the same level of services as this year reflecting increased costs), a level funding budget (which allocates the same dollar amount as this year but necessarily requires cuts to services), a cost-of-living budget (or cost of attendance per student), and a fourth scenario that would show the maximum amount the school district could spend before reaching the excess spending threshold allowed by the state.
Estler said she will begin presenting these scenarios beginning at the Nov. 19 board meeting, with each scenario getting dedicated agenda time over four meetings. The school board needs to settle on its proposed 2026-27 budget to put on the March Town Meeting Day ballot by the end of January.
Hundreds answer redistricting survey
The school board’s Public Outreach Committee recently shared a survey with the public about the state school redistricting process. That survey has now closed. Moretown member and committee Chair Steve Rosenberg reported there had been well over 600 responses several days before the survey ended.
“The last survey we did on last year’s school budget got about 230 responses as a comparison,” Rosenberg said, adding, “So this issue is important to all of us.”
A majority of respondents shared that they see more risks than benefits to consolidation, Rosenberg summarized, noting that critics of redistricting focused on loss of local control, transportation, and general skepticism about projected savings. Perceived benefits included more course offerings on more varied subjects and more opportunities for athletics.
“A key concern, of course, is property taxes – regardless of whether the respondent is in favor or against consolidation,” Rosenberg said.
Rosenberg also acknowledged his surprise at how many respondents criticized the process itself, mostly aiming their dismay at the legislature. “A lot of people feel that they just don’t trust the legislature to…handle this well,” he concluded.
The committee will share a report of the survey’s responses with the school board at its Nov. 5 meeting. Woods and Vice Chair Cindy Selling have said they plan to attend the Nov. 10 state School District Redistricting Task Force meeting to relay the Harwood district’s community feedback.
Fayston appointment
Also at this week’s school board meeting, the board has on its agenda interviewing a candidate for a vacant seat representing Fayston. Board member Mike Bishop resigned last month.
One Fayston resident, Langford Davidson, who also serves as Fayston Planning Commission chair, submitted a letter of interest. His application is linked to the school board Nov. 9 meeting agenda.
Bishop was in the first year of a three-year term on the school board. An interim appointment will only run through the March 2026 Town Meeting Day election. The remaining two years for that term would be on the March ballot.