Supporter and opponent of Summit School District’s $195 million bond proposal debate pros and cons during election forum
Differing viewpoints on Summit School District’s $195 million bond proposal took center stage on Monday, Oct. 21, as voters prepare to weigh into the ballot initiative ahead of Election Day, Nov. 5.
Summit School District Superintendent Tony Byrd advocated for the ballot initiative and Steve Scheil, a Summit County resident who was formerly a superintendent, spoke against the plans in front of a live audience at Colorado Mountain College. The election forum was hosted by Summit Daily News editor Andrew Maciejewski, who developed the questions independently based on surveys and reader suggestions. The event was supported by Altitude Realtors, The Summit Chamber, Summit County Builders Association and Summit Alliance of Vacation Rental Managers.
Byrd said the bond was crucial in supporting the district’s career pathways program that seeks to provide students with vocational and professional skills needed in the workforce.
“It is time to move to a learning system that is future-forward,” he said, noting Summit County’s need to follow a statewide trend to provide robust programs that support vocational and professional education.
He said the bond will also help improve the district’s facilities that are in need of repair while also providing affordable housing for teachers since many of them have voiced concerns over finding housing that is attainable.
Scheil said he has a 43-year career in public schools and advocates for them. He’s helped pass ballot measures on bond proposals for schools he’s worked for in other states, but he said he can’t support this one for various reasons.
“Missed and willfully ignored opportunities just don’t work for me — or this community,” he said. “Let’s have a more open conversation to see a different way to support our students, our staff and our community.”
He said continued tax increases will hurt the community by forcing young families to leave with their children, which could result in declining enrollment. He doesn’t believe there was enough transparency regarding the introduction of the bond proposal.
Following opening statements, Maciejewski asked each candidate five questions and allowed one-minute responses.
Question No. 1: What arguments do you have for or against the $46-million plan to develop 60 units of below-market rate housing for district staff, and why?
Byrd started off his answer by drawing attention to how 48% of teachers who were surveyed in the school district said they would consider leaving in the next five years due to lack of affordable housing.
“You can’t expect an exceptional education in schools without great teachers and great staff (that) stay for the long haul,” he said.
He said no superintendent wants to get involved in housing, but that is what the issue requires in many mountain town communities similar to Summit.
Scheil argued staff housing should be done in conjunction with the county government and municipalities. He said he thought the cost of the effort was “outrageous.” He also said he disagrees with the district’s goal to have staff members pay 30% of their salary toward rent since other areas, like Vail, make teachers pay closer to 40%.
“Continued property tax increases by the district are not sustainable,” he said.
Question No. 2: What arguments do you have for or against the $47 million plan to demolish and rebuild Breckenridge Elementary School?
Byrd said Breckenridge Elementary “is not in great shape” and has a low rating in terms of facility conditions. He said the district found replacing it to be the most viable option.
He said other options were considered — such as renovating Breckenridge Elementary or combining the school with Upper Blue Elementary School — but the costs of those would have been over $20 million and would equate to investing in a used car when a new one is needed. He said the students at Breckenridge Elementary also deserve a new and safer building.
Scheil agreed the school was in disrepair and something needed to be done, but he argued the option the district is proposing is not “forward-thinking.” He said he thought consolidating the two elementary schools in Breckenridge would be the best and most cost-effective option. He argued development in Summit is shifting north, meaning there will be more families with young children in the northern part of the county in the coming years.
“This would leave a new school almost empty,” he said.
Question No. 3: What arguments do you have for or against the $37 million plan to rebuild and relocate Snowy Peaks Jr. & Sr. High School?
Byrd said a core tenant of the bond is providing students with hands-on learning across seven career fields to better prepare them for the workforce. He said the career areas align well with Colorado Mountain College’s offerings and that it would be beneficial to have the schools in close proximity to each other. He said while Snowy Peaks High School has a strong graduation rate, it is in desperate need of a new facility, emphasizing that students and staff have voiced these concerns with him.
Scheil said what Snow Peaks High School offers to learners with varying needs is “essential to a successful school district,” but he argued the proposal was unnecessary.
“My professional experience is that the regular classroom teachers need to teach using differentiated instruction strategies so that they meet the needs of each student,” he said. “The district needs to meet the students’ needs at Summit High School.”
He added the district shouldn’t be “pushing” students with different learning needs away to an alternative program.
Question No. 4: What arguments do you have for or against the $32 million plan to build a new hub for the district’s career and technical programs?
Byrd said the district has existing programs where students have been able to build things like tiny houses and skis, but he argued the current space is too small. He said he wants to provide a larger, more flexible space to further expand on the district’s technical programs.
He said the district is hoping to mimic technical hubs that are already working for other school districts across the state. He added the effort is largely surrounded around a “paradigm shift” to get students excited about learning and prepare them for life after high school.
Scheil said career and technical training has been in schools since the 1990s and that the trend is not new. He argued this expansion will lead to ongoing expenses for equipment and materials for the technical hub. He also said providing advanced skills for career and technical education should be a responsibility of technical colleges and institutions similar to Colorado Mountain College, not public schools.
Question No. 5: What arguments do you have for or against the $33.6 million plan for maintenance across the district?
Byrd listed HVAC systems, carpets in the classroom and other key facility improvements that the bond will help address.
“The No. 1 issue that most people come to me about is physical safety of their students and (how) our internet speed and access is not great,” he said, noting improving internet speed is among the top priorities of the bond.
He also said top-tier athletes like Ella Hagen, a cross-country and track runner, shouldn’t have to train on concrete slabs with cracks in it, emphasizing that funds from the bond will go toward facilities in need of repair, like lockerooms
Scheil said the district could acquire more funding to address problems such as maintenance issues by selling the land Breckenridge Elementary is currently housed on.
He also said he feels the district is “irresponsibly” spending its money, and he claimed that overspending could result in a reduction to its AAA bond rating.
He said expenses like maintenance are justifiable for a bond proposal, but he argued that some of the other things the district is spending money on aren’t justifiable.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Summit Daily is embarking on a multiyear project to digitize its archives going back to 1989 and make them available to the public in partnership with the Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection. The full project is expected to cost about $165,000. All donations made in 2023 will go directly toward this project.
Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.